Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2023

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2023 [1].

Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 00:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Me Too". This song received considerable attention twice, once when Trainor pulled its music video down after allegedly unauthorized photoshopping of her body, and another time when she fell on-stage while performing it on The Tonight Show. It has a simple production and bumptious lyrics which received criticism at the time. Nonetheless, the song has enjoyed enduring popularity and Trainor has continued performing it later into her career. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 00:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review—pass

[edit]

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. I really appreciate it!--NØ 19:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • "benefits of her lifestyle" I do not think this is reflected in the article's body. I can see that it is vaguely implied, but I suggest explicitly saying this or just getting rid of it.
  • "...the chairman of Epic Records..." This does not make it apparent that Trainor herself is associated with Epic Records; can you make this clear?
  • "Following the disagreement..." Personally I did not understand from the previous sentences that there was a disagreement.
  • If Jason Desrouleaux is more well-known as Jason Derulo, would it be beneficial to refer to him as such?
  • Changed everywhere except the infobox, where birth names are usually used in the songwriter(s) field.
  • Also I think introducing Derulo and Peter Svensson would be helpful.
  • Brennan Carley of Spin compared it to Will.i.am and Britney Spears's 2012 single "Scream & Shout": The wording here is somewhat unclear- it could imply that "Scream & Shout" was a song by both Will.i.am and Spears (which it is), or it could imply that Carley compared the song to Will.i.am, and then also compared it to "Scream & Shout" by Spears.
  • "Some music critics commented on the production and Trainor's performance on "Me Too"; this has strange wording. Maybe something like this would work: "Some music critics commented on the production of "Me Too", as well as Trainor's performance of the song"
  • Link Gap Inc.?
  • "Some critics were positive." --> "Some critics were positive regarding the lyrics."
  • "This week it appeared at number 4 on the Digital Songs chart..." Which week? The eleventh?

These are all my comments at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments, Unlimitedlead! They should be addressed now :) --NØ 19:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will support this nomination, then. Nice, short, and well-researched. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Album titles should be done in italics per WP:CONFORMTITLE so Thank You should be in italics for Citation 4. This is also true for show titles so The Tonight Show and Today should be in italics in the citation titles. Song titles should also be consistently in single quotation marks.
  • Should be good now.
  • Citations 5 and 6 should have the albums linked.
  • I was discouraged from doing this during a previous source review.
  • Citation 61 has a by-line from The Hollywood Reporter as it was an article that had originally appeared in that publication so I would mark it as such in the citation.
  • Done.
  • It seems that a majority of the citations just include the site without the publisher, but Citation 17 includes Andpop and Channel Zero so it is not consistent with the others. Is this done to solidify that Andpop is an appropriate source? Apologies for wrapping a few comments in one, but what makes Andpop a high-quality source for a FA? Since it appears that the site is dead, it is harder to check the primary source.
  • I've corrected the formatting error with the ref. Not sure why they went defunct but they had a multi-staff editorial team which included Brittany Rodrigues who has written for Huffington Post and Baltimore Post Examiner and Julia Lennox who has written for Global News and ET Canada so it should be good.
  • Has this song been the subject of retrospective reviews? I could not find any, but I have only done a superficial search. I believe we have discussed this in a previous FA, and it just do not appear that Trainor gets this kind of retrospective coverage compared to other artists.
  • Added.
  • Apologies in advance as this does not technically fall under the scope of a source review. Would it be possible to trim down or consider the paragraph on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon performance? I am not sure four separate sentences on the reviews are necessary for instance as they could be bundled for the overview sentence and one or two examples given. An example of possibly excessive details are (in a green and black sequin dress and high heel) or an overly wordy part (was accompanied by a backing band which gave the performance a big rock and roll finish)
  • The size of the content included represents the due weightage proportionate to the extensive media coverage drawn by the performance. I believe it is regular practice to briefly note what someone wore during a performance if this was covered by sources and the removal of anything else will be detrimental to readers. You are right in pointing out that this falls more under the scope of a prose review, though.
  • Fair enough. I do remember that this was one of the main discussions around the song (this and the edited music video) and I still do see discussions on both cropping up periodically so I think that is a fair point. I will leave this matter up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this source review is helpful. I will do a deeper dive in the sources to make sure all the information matches and is supported once my above comments have been addressed. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba47! Hope you are having a great week as well.--NØ 11:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 13 uses this link, which does not go to the actual article, and I would replace it with the following link instead. The current link leads to a "Listen to this article" audio file and an image, but not to the actual article.
  • Citation 14 requires a subscription so it should be marked as such in the citation. The same comment applies to Citations 26, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 72.

Once all the above comments have been addressed, this will pass my source review. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for the help. Everything should be taken care of. I will note that I am able to access ref 72 without a subscription, though.--NØ 12:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. This FAC passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • "Some music critics commented" → it's okay to just write "Music critics commented". Unless it says "All music critics commented", it is already implied that some did.
  • "blamed it for Trainor's commercial decline" → a footnote or further explanation would be helpful here; this is the first time I'm reading anything about a commercial decline
  • "MTV News's Madeline Roth admitted all listeners may not fully related to the lyrics of "Me Too", but "its dance-friendly beat will at least have you on your feet"" → this doesn't fit in with the introductory sentence "Some critics were positive regarding the lyrics"
  • I believe the point this review conveys is that the song's unrelatable lyrics did not completely ruin it, so I think it is appropriately placed. I've tried to amend the introductory sentence a bit to reflect this better.
  • "During the same week, it appeared at number" → are these its peaks or just a random week?
  • Switched to peaks now.
  • "during the smooth performance" → feels a bit POV-ish
  • Argentina, Israel, Latvia ref needs trans-title and language parameters
  • release history table needs row scopes and headers
  • Google Play is in German—this supports a US release date?
  • Good catch. Surfing through different web archives of this link proves the digital download was available in various countries.

Great work! Heartfox (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments, Heartfox. Hopefully they have been satisfactorily addressed.--NØ 21:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support :) Heartfox (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "She initially recorded doo-wop songs in a similar vein as her debut single" => "She initially recorded doo-wop songs in a similar vein to her debut single"
  • "Jada Yuan of Billboard believed it delicately forwarded Trainor's retro image to a more urban R&B style" - I'm not sure "forwarded" is the right word here. Maybe "shifted Trainor's retro image towards"....?
  • "Hazel Cills opined the pulsating" => "Hazel Cills opined that the pulsating"
  • "Chuck Campbell opined Trainor's sass" => "Chuck Campbell opined that Trainor's sass"
  • "MTV News's Madeline Roth admitted all listeners may not fully related" => "MTV News's Madeline Roth admitted all listeners may not fully relate"
  • "Rolling Stone wrote she sang with unanticipated ardour" => "Rolling Stone wrote that she sang with unanticipated ardour" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: - all done -- NØ 13:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • It was number one on Israel's TV Airplay chart, which is different than the national record chart and probably not lead-worthy.
Prose
  • I'm inclined to keep this quote as Reid's extreme appreciation of that song was highly influential on the creation of "Me Too", and it's best conveyed with the quote.
  • "Who's that sexy thing I see over there?", referring to her own reflection in the mirror.[19] She thanks God for waking up with a positive feeling and declares that she cannot help but love herself.[20] In the chorus, Trainor sings: "If I was you, I'd wanna be me too".[ - quotes should follow the same sentence structure as the rest of the sentence, so they shouldn't start with a capital unless they start a sentence in our prose, even if the original does. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • She assumes an Eastern European accent during the lyric, pronouncing the word "wanna" like "vahna" - I have a bit of an issue with this. The source is more derising of the track, suggesting that the songwork is poor, rather than her intentionally using an Eastern European accent (it's also a bit off, because I'd suggest they are suggesting it's more of a faux-Russian accent, rather than say an Estonian, Polish or Moldovan one). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now attributed the accent to the critic more clearly and put it in quotes. We do have to stick to the source so I don't belive it would be appropriate to refer to it as anything other than "Eastern European" in the article.
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lee Vilenski, I believe the comments should be addressed now. Cheers!--NØ 11:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]

Article is already in great shape overall, just a few very minor comments:

  • Minor nitpick - in a similar vein is a MOS:IDIOM, perhaps it can be specified
  • Same with go back to the drawing board
  • at number 13 on the chart in its 11th week of charting. -- perhaps a full stop at 11th week. So chart isn't repeated.
  • Perhaps a variation of the use of "reprise" in the second paragraph of the Live performances section to avoid repetition

I have not read the other editors' comments so apologies if there are repetitions/overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. If you have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2023 [2].

Al-Musta'li

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 12:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ninth Fatimid caliph, whose rise to the throne in 1094 was due to the machinations of the powerful vizier al-Afdal Shahanshah, and caused a major rift in the Isma'ili branch of Shi'a Islam. Al-Musta'li remained under the thumb of his vizier for the duration of his relatively short caliphate, and his reign is mostly a record of al-Afdal's actions. The article is a pendant to Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, al-Musta'li's elder brother, who was likely the legitimate successor. For the initial sections on the disputed succession and Nizar's revolt, there is considerable overlap between the two. Both articles were heavily rewritten, effectively from scratch, in 2020. Al-Musta'li passed GA in March 2022, while Nizar's article became FA in May 2022. As usual, I am looking forward to any comments and suggestions for further improvement. Constantine ✍ 12:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • "when learning of al-Mustansir's passing" => "when learning of al-Mustansir's death"
    • Done.
  • Is there not more to say about al-Musta'li himself? The "reign" section, for example, barely mentions him
    • Unfortunately, no. As a younger son, he was not in line for the succession, and would have been a mere name, if that, in the footnotes of history. As caliph, he was a puppet ruler, and even on affairs concerning the Isma'ili da'wa, it is unknown whether it was al-Musta'li showing agency or whether, as figurehead, events were attributed to him. All historical and modern sources on his life focus on two things: the disputed succession, and then the events of his reign, which saw the arrival of the Crusaders. I have also given only a brief overview of these events, and not gone into as much detail as I could, since they properly belong to the article on al-Afdal, who actually was responsible for the government.
  • That's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: comments addressed. If I may ask, did you find the article easy to understand? Or is there more context/detailed explanation that can be added somewhere? Constantine ✍ 09:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, anything you wanted to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

[edit]

Will do a naive non-expert review soon. —Kusma (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: is "youngest of the sons" definite enough to be stated like that?
    • That appears to be the consensus. In the main article text, I was a bit more cautious given Walker's comments, but most sources don't hesitate in calling him that (e.g. Gibb and Özkuyumcu). Halm, as you point out, is an exception. I have rephrased it, however, to make clear that he at any rate wasn't the oldest.
  • I am wondering whether it is worth giving a little bit of historical context about the Fatimid Caliphate and where al-Musta'li stands within its history. (According to that article, the Fatimid Caliphate was in decline at this time and ruled only over Egypt). The capital was in Cairo?
    • Excellent point, done.
      • Much better. However, "Life" is no longer a very descriptive section header (and not all of the life is covered here).
        • Added a new subheader.
          • You could perhaps even drop the "Life" now (it is a biography, after all) and upgrade the Level 3 to Level 2 headings.
  • CE dates seem to be Julian; I assume this is standard?
    • Hmmm, since the Gregorian calendar wasn't around yet, I guess so? What would be the difference?
      • A few days :) I don't think you need to do anything here.
        • My point (very much not clearly made) was what you 'tipped you off', i.e. why the dates "seem to be Julian" ;).
          • I was curious and checked a calendar converter.
  • Life: "youngest of all of al-Mustansir's sons" Halm p. 88 has him as the fourth oldest of ten sons, quite a bit different from the youngest of seventeen. Would it make sense to state how much younger than Nizar he was?
    • Yes, this puzzled me for a while. I don't know where Halm gets this from. Walker, who lays out his investigation in some detail, is quite definitive: "it now appears even more likely that the future al-Musta'li was the youngest of al-Mustansir's sons. He was, moreover and perhaps most importantly, the only one born (and raised) under the dictatorship of Badr." The statement of Halm contradicts even Halm's own notes on the issue, since he remarks (p. 366) on the existence of Ahmad's older namesake brother. I guess what Halm means is that Ahmad was the youngest of the four surviving sons of al-Mustansir at the time of the latter's death, but this is contradicted by calling these four the 'eldest'. Given that Nizar, likely the firstborn, was born in 1045, thirty years before al-Musta'li, it beggars belief that al-Musta'li may have been among the older sons of al-Mustansir. As noted above, the communis opinio among scholars is that he was indeed the youngest son.
  • "no definite designation of Nizar" this makes sense only in conjunction with the footnote that talks about Nass (Islam). It might be worth moving some of that footnote into the main text. Or to just say "no formal designation"?
    • Changed.
  • The three paragraphs starting from "In 1122" are later explanations and justifications for al-Musta'li's accession. I found this a bit confusing, as the accession itself hasn't happened yet in the body of the article, and it seems we are jumping forward and backwards in time. Perhaps an introductory sentence would help, or some reordering (you could have the paragraph talking about al-Mustansir's death and the accession right after talking about Ahmad's wedding, and then tell us about al-Amir's proclamation and other attempts to justify what happened. In other words, first have the succession and then the dispute about the succession?
    • Good suggestion, done.
  • Would it make sense to cite some modern Nizari scholars? And do we know what other Islamic leaders/scholars at the time thought of this split?
    • Good question: I have tried to find WP:RS on the issue (or at least some source in a language I can read) while working on Nizar's article, but have failed so far. Modern Nizaris are obviously partisans of Nizar's succession, but remarkably for an event of such apparent importance I don't have the impression that it is a major talking point. As long as there is an 'imam of the time', the past is not so relevant, it seems. The reaction of other Islamic leaders is also difficult to know; within Ismailism, the reaction is known and given in the article. Outside, it must have been seen as a simple succession dispute, if it registered at all. If you are a Sunni ruler or scholar, and learn of these events, you would likely not attribute any particular religious significance to them, since you already reject Fatimid claims and legitimacy in toto.
  • Nizar's revolt and the Nizari schism: How long/when is the "in the meantime" (you mean the time between al-Mustansir's death and the "grand assembly of officials")?
    • Yes, but it is needlessly confusing. Have rephrased to 'After fleeing from Cairo'.
  • "allegiance of the Arab tribes" which Arab tribes? Are they important players? (I do not understand enough of the context here).
    • No names for the tribes are given here, although I could make an educated guess who these were (Juhayna, Tha'laba, Tayy). The point is that the Arab tribes were semi-autonomous, and could provide a crucial pool of military manpower (as well as an excellent and skilled, albeit undisciplined, raiding/reconnaissance force). Have slightly rephrased to emphasize the military dimension of this, but don't know if it is enough.
      • The main issue for me is that "al-Afdal managed to win back the allegiance of the Arab tribes" is surprising, as we didn't yet know that their allegiance had changed.
        • After further consideration, I decided to remove this. It is covered in a bit more detail in Nizar's article, and here it is rather redundant.
  • perhaps clarify "immured" to "immured and died" as in Halm?
    • Done.
  • Do we know anything about the rumours that he was poisoned? (Where do these rumours come from and who wrote about them?)
    • Well, the sources report it as a rumour, but as Halm notes ('wie üblich munkelte man'), this is the inevitable rumour that will always arise when a ruler dies at an early age, and in unclear power relationships, as here. The other sources don't even mention the rumours.
      • Mentioning this only in the body and not in the lead is fine.

A very interesting article about a puppet ruler in a complicated time. As I said, I found the "Disputed succession" bit somewhat hard to understand, and as this is kind of the central issue from the religious split perspective, it would be worth clarifying it as much as possible. As I said, I am clueless about the period, so I apologise if I missed something obvious. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • I didn't get to review his brother, so will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, there's a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.[3]
  • " All three refused, each claiming that he had been designated as successor by their father." When I first read this, I was confused, because I thought "he" referred to al-Musta'li. Not a big deal, but maybe "they" would be clearer?
    • Rephrased to 'each claiming to have been designated' for clarity.
  • "A letter sent to Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi" Link and present her at first mention, now this only happens further down.
    • Fixed.
  • Wow, I've never seen a footnote within a footnote before (b), but I guess that's the only way to do it in this case.
    • Yeah, not exactly ideal. I have moved the imam footnote up, so hopefully readers will see what an 'imam' is in this context before they get to nass. Have also trimmed the footnote to keep the essentials (although I fear even so it is information overload).
  • "to make common cause the Crusaders" Missing "with"?
    • Indeed, fixed.
  • "and main candidate for their father's succession, Nizar" The article body seems much less clear that he was actually designated as such.
    • Changed to 'most likely candidate'; given that Nizar was likely the oldest son, he would normally have succeeded. An many sources simply assume him to have been the de facto heir-apparent.

Comments by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

I will review after Kusma's comments have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Throughout his reign, al-Musta'li remained subordinate to al-Afdal, who was the de facto ruler of the state" Which state? I think this needs to be explicitly stated.
    • Clarified.
  • "While Egypt experienced a period of good government..." This is rather vague.
    • Have tried to clarify. What exactly do you think needs to be elaborated?
  • "Despite Fatimid attempts to treat with the Crusaders..." What does it mean to "treat with"? I would reword.
    • Done.
  • Cairo is double linked in the infobox.
    • Fixed.
  • "Ahmad's oldest half-brother, Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, was apparently considered at the time as the most likely successor to their father, as was the custom..." What custom? I would briefly explain or place a note.
    • Hmmm, have rephrased slightly, but do I really need to explain primogeniture in succession? That the eldest usually succeeds in a monarchy is common knowledge.
  • "...Abdallah and Isma'il made for a nearby mosque..." "made off" sounds quite colloquial; reword?
    • Done.
  • "In it he puts forth a number of arguments..." "puts" is present tense; please switch to past tense.
    • fixed.
  • "Modern historians point out that this was a deliberately misconstrued argument, as the princes were sent away for their protection, not because of their rank" Is it possible to have a citation for this sentence?
    • Clarified that this is Walker's view, and repeated the citation
  • Link Coup d'état?
    • Done.

@Unlimitedlead: Thanks for taking the time, I've addressed your comments so far. Constantine ✍ 10:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I am more than happy to give my suggestions on how to improve an article. However, I do not feel comfortable supporting or opposing this nomination at this time. Thank you for understanding. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: Sure, and I am thankful for any suggestions. But may I ask what you feel is missing for your support? Constantine ✍ 12:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just feel like the article does not discuss enough about the titular monarch. It talks plenty about the historical context and people close to Al-Musta'li, but I personally feel like a large portion of the article is unrelated and could probably be deleted. However, I recognize that there is a shortcoming in the historical record and modern academic discussion; that is why I do not oppose. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I fully sympathize with that. Thanks again for your time and suggestions! Constantine ✍ 09:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • The long reign of al-Mustansir ensured that he had numerous offspring... Is there a connection between the length of a ruler's reign and the number of his children? For instance, Sigismund of Luxemburg ruled for 50 years but he fathered only one child.
    • There definitely is, if you have a large harem at your disposal and not much to do since your viziers govern the country for you... But you are right, the statement is open to misinterpretation. Rephrased.
  • Other reports... No reports have been mentioned. Is his date of birth mentioned in the first sentence a fact or an assumption?
    • Removed and replaced with a variant date. The commonly mentioned/accepted date is the former (1074).
  • Do we know his mother's name?
    • No, at least not in the sources cited here, and I haven't been able to find anything anywhere else. Given the deliberate Fatimid policy of not allowing prominence to anyone from the family but the caliph and his designated heir (with some exceptions that are notable precisely as exceptions), her name was likely never recorded.
  • I assume Nizar was Ahmad's half-brother.
    • Indeed, aded.
  • Do we need a footnote within a footnote? I think the issue could be solved with a wikilink to nass (Islam) and a reference to the Ismaili conception of imamate in the main text.
    • I've resolved at least the first part. Frankly I don't particularly like the ultra-condensed information dump in the footnotes, so I would normally agree, but a) it has been expressly requested in previous reviews about Fatimid caliphs, and b) our various articles on the imamate of the various Shia branches are not a very inviting read.
  • ...was apparently considered as the most likely successor to his father... Is "apparently" necessary? By whom or when was he considered as his father's heir? Perhaps "their father"?
    • Rephrased a bit.
  • ...is often stated ... By whom or when?
    • Added.
  • ...favoured the accession of Ahmad. Why?
  • I would mention Cairo before referring to it as "the capital".
  • (father of the Caliph al-Hafiz) Do we need to know in the article's context? If yes, his reigning years should also be mentioned.
    • Yes because it is unlikely that he will ever have an article, and this is the only way to distinguish him. Added the regnal dates, good suggestion.
  • ...at the wedding banquet... I am not sure that all readers will understand that this is a reference to Ahmad's wedding.
    • Clarified.
  • Link Fatimid Great Palaces when the first reference to the palace is made (in the section's second paragraph).
    • Done at an earlier place, where it is now mentioned
  • Introduce (and link) Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi when she is first mentioned.
    • Done.
  • What does the term "Musta'li leader" mean?
    • Clarified.
  • ..., but the Fatimid vizier's efforts ultimately failed Consider deleting this text, because the following sentences contain a full account of the events.
    • Good point, done.
  • ...other Seljuk emirs of Syria... Were all of them emirs or some of them were leaders bearing a different title (such as atabeg)?
    • Good point. 'Rulers' is better.
  • ...to make contact with them... I assume with the crusaders/crusader leaders.
    • Clarified.
  • Do we have further information about his family? Was Sitt al-Mulk his sons' or al-Amir's mother? Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will give the same answer as above, in that Fatimid women and junior princes are rarely mentioned in primary sources and consequently even less so in modern accounts. If I find any such info, I will add it.
  • Mustaʽli Ismailism should be mentioned and explained in the main text.
    • Done.
  • I understand his date of birth mentioned in the lead is not a fact.
    • It is the commonly accepted date. The alternative is always mentioned as such, an 'also mentioned'.
  • ...and main candidate... Is this factual and neutral?
    • Have rephrased as 'most likely candidate', but the consensus appears to be so. Nizar was apparently the oldest brother, and custom and doctrine would suggest him as the obvious successor. If we take some of the medieval historians at face value, he may even have been the designated heir apparent, we just don't have any evidence for that (and it would make the usurpation even more blatant, so modern historians generally discount this).
  • Al-Musta'li died in 1101 and was succeeded by his five-year-old son, al-Amir. I think this could be the closing sentence in the lead. I would not repeat the year of death in the lead but would mention the rumours that he was poisoned.
    • Moved the death to the end. On the poisoning, Halm, who mentions this, makes pretty clear that it was the usual rumour that happens when a young monarch under the tutelage of a powerful minister dies. I.e., I prefer not to make it official by putting it in the lede.
  • Consider linking the Siege of Jerusalem (1099) in the lead.
    • Done.
  • ... a major victory over the Fatimid army ... Perhaps "a major victory over al-Afdal/al-Afdal's army"? Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the sense that it was led by al-Afdal? Done.
@Borsoka: many thanks for the extensive and helpful review. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 16:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this interesting and well written article. I support the article's promotion. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review Pass

[edit]
  • Brett, Michael (2017): Google books has preview
    • Added
  • Özkuyumcu, Nadir (2006): I would suggest removing hyphens from the ISBN (turn 0 results outside Wikipedia). Check unhyphenated ISBN for comparison.
    • Personally, as long as the ISBN is correct and worldcat etc can find the correct resource by it, I don't really care. The problem is that often there is an expectation of conformity for ISBN formatting, and usually the hyphenated forms are used in the other citations. As a result, I have also used the hyphenated forms in the template.
  • Daftary 2007, pp. 1, 39–86: this range is unreasonable. Suggest using 39ff instead.
    • Done, but again there appears to be no standard here: I have been admonished against using 'ff.' in several reviews in the past.
  • Brett 2017, pp. 205–218 : ditto
    • As above
  • Correct page for [35] is 249 and not 248
    • Thanks, fixed.
  • Spot checks done for roughly 20% of the citations. No problems found except for the minor point above
  • Sources are all high quality and correctly formatted except for the minor points listed above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Thanks for the thorough review, I have addressed your comments. Constantine ✍ 09:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2023 [4].

Shooting of Stephen Waldorf

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk)

London. 1983. A police task force is hunting a dangerous escaped criminal. Thinking they've got their man, they follow a car through the West End. When the car grinds to a halt in traffic, an armed officer moves in to confirm their suspect's identity. Apparently believing his quarry has recognised him, the officer opens fire without warning. Two more armed officers join in the shooting and, having run out of ammunition, the first officer begins clubbing the man with the butt of his revolver. Only afterwards do the officers realise that the man, who survived but suffered five bullet wounds and a broken skull, is not the escaped criminal David Martin but a 26-year-old film editor named Stephen Waldorf. There was considerable outcry in the public and the press. Two police officers were charged with (but acquitted of) attempted murder and the British government rapidly initiated reforms to police firearms policy.

I've essentially rewritten the article from scratch over a few months as part of a project on British police shootings and the development of police firearms policy. It's had a peer review, where @Tim riley, SchroCat, and Mujinga: offered some valuable suggestions, and now I think it's ready for its bronze star but I'm always happy to hear more feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoop, whoop, this is the sound of the police. I was in Madam Tussauds with my nan when this happened! Now, how about a map? SN54129 13:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't even conceived! ;) Do you think a map would be helpful? A bit like my reply to SchroCat's comment in the PR that the article doesn't focus much on Wadorf—it wouldn't really have mattered if his John Smith and he was shot in Dulwich because it's the action of the police officers and the reforms that followed that make the incident noteworthy. Still, I can try and dig up a map if you think it would be useful. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh :) I was thinking os one showing their respective routes, and where the police joined in, but perhaps we don't have that level of detail? SN54129 12:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Hi Nikki, Worpole fixed. The bibliography is all cite book and cite journal; the only non-templated bit is Waddington's chapter, which is the same way I referenced a chapter on Bennerley Viaduct, or have I missed something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason to not use a template for that as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do the templates allow for that? I hate template syntax; I just hate typing out citations by hand even more! @Nikkimaria HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Squires, Peter (2023). "Armed Responses and Critical Shots: Learning Lessons from Police-Involved Shootings in England and Wales". In Clare Farmer; Richard Evans (eds.). Policing & Firearms: New Perspectives and Insights. London: Springer. ISBN 9783031130137. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

No licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

If we're trading in ages, I was 31 at the time, so a little more respect from you youngsters, if you please! I could find very little to carp about at the peer review, and after a further perusal I can find no more, except to repeat that in my view the images at the top of the article should be put in reverse order so that Waldorf − the subject of the article − has his picture before that of David Martin. I don't press the point and am entirely happy to support. Tim riley talk 15:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by SC

[edit]

I was also happy at PR and another readthrough shows this is a strong article that meets all the criteria of the FAC. An excellent piece of work. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Support by SN

[edit]

I suspect I'm the only one that didn't have to pay to get into M. Tussaud's then  :) fine article. Think I agree with Tim re. pic placement, except I might suggest arranging them vertically rather than horizontally. Cheers! SN54129 15:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

[edit]
  • "When the car stopped in traffic, Detective Constable Finch" - as this is his first mention, should his forename be given?
  • "a third officer, Detective Constable Jardine" - and here?
  • "He had served a nine-year prison sentence, starting in 1973 for a series of frauds and burglaries" - I would say this should be either "He had served a nine-year prison sentence, starting in 1973, for a series of frauds and burglaries" or "He had served a nine-year prison sentence starting in 1973 for a series of frauds and burglaries" but not what is there currently
  • "Martin escaped his cell and escaped" - maybe change the second "escaped" to "fled"?
  • I note that the police officers' forenames also aren't given in the body and they are only referred to as "DC [name]". This seems oddly deferential. I would suggest that their full names be given the first time they are mentioned (assuming we have reliable sources for them).
  • "An article in The Independent ten years after the incident, described it" - don't think that comma is needed
  • That's what I got. Oh, and as it appears mandatory to declare it, I was ten years old at the time. By the look of things I watched Tales of the Gold Monkey after my tea that evening :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Chris, thanks very much for having a look. I've addressed all your comments excep the one about the officers' names. I've deliberately excluded their first names per WP:BLPNAME, much as with Martin's girlfriend and the car's driver. I don't think it's right that the top Google hit for somebody's name should be a Wikipedia article about a single event they were involved in, especially 40 years later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a valid point about BLPNAME -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

I shall never reveal my age, but I can disclose that this event took place at least ten years before I was even conceived. Comments to follow soon, I suppose Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The shooting caused a public outcry..." Perhaps this is British English or a personal shortcoming, but the grammar sounds strange to me. I would say "caused public outcry" instead.
  • Do we know Detective Constable Finch's real first name?
    • See my reply to Chris above; I've deliberately excluded per WP:BLPNAME. I included the surnames because it would be too complicated to explain the sequence of events without som way to refer to them.
  • "Finch, an armed officer, incorrectly believed that Waldorf was Martin and that he had been recognised" This long sentence can be condensed to be more concise. You could try something like: "Finch, an armed officer, incorrectly discerned Waldorf to be Martin."
    • The sentence isn't very long, and Finch's justification for shooting was the thought "Martin" (who turned out to be Waldorf) had recognised him.
  • Also do we know Detective Constable Jardine's first name?
  • "The shooting caused an outcry..." Ditto with my first comment.
  • "(Martin was known to carry two guns)" You have already said this previously.
    • Removed.
  • "The investigation found that the officers had fired a total of 14 shots" I would add "subsequent" before investigation for clarity.
    • I'm not sure tit's necessary (you can't have an invetigation into shots fired until after they've been fired) but it doesn't hurt anything so done.
  • Link parliament to Parliament of the United Kingdom?
    • I would consider that overlinking but I'm more conservative in my linking than most editors.
  • What are AFOs? This needs to be stated.
    • Not sure what you mean? In the lead we have a smaller number of better-trained officers, to be known as authorised firearms officers and in the body the term "authorised firearms officer" (AFO) became the standard national designation for a for a police officer trained in the use of firearms and both link to the Wikipedia article on the term. Does it need more explanation than that?
  • "In a 2023 book chapter..." I think the book should be named, rather than vaguely referring to it as "a 2023 book".
    • I haven't named any of the other books I've quoted from, just the authors and their expertise, so I don't think it's necessary to name this one.
  • Peter Waddington is linked twice in the Bibliography section.
    • Not sure that's a problem but he's the only one so unlinked.
  • Do we know more about Stephen Waldorf's life? What did he do after the incident?
    • He gave a few interviews (which is mentioned in the article) but other than that he wasn't notable before the incident and he was't notable after it. It almost wouldn't have mattered who the police shot in this case; the incident is known for the mistken identity and the reforms that followed it.

That's all... Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead thanks ofr your comments! Nice to see I'm not the youngest one here! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. I will support this nomination.Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

[edit]

As with Tim's and schro's comments from your peer review, I'm struggling to find much to pick you up on for the writing of the article – my minor quibbles:

  • "which caused damage to his abdomen and liver" – "which caused damage to" seems unnecessarily wordy to me; any reason not to prefer "which damaged" or even "damaging"?
  • "Waldorf was taken to St Stephen's Hospital, as was the other passenger (Martin's girlfriend) who was grazed by a bullet" - I think this phrasing is in response to mujinga's query about the passengers in your PR, but this reads awkwardly to me; I would have suggested simply removing the parenthetical, but in deference to mujinga's confusion perhaps "... to St Stephen's Hospital, as was Martin's girlfriend who was grazed by a bullet"? (Alternatively, you could rework these sentences a little more to something like:

Waldorf suffered five bullet wounds—damaging his abdomen and liver—as well as a fractured skull and injuries to one hand caused by the pistol whipping. Martin's girlfriend was also grazed by a bullet. Both were taken to St. Stephen's Hospital.

  • "Finch was returned to uniform" – I had to think about this a little to realise that it probably meant Finch was previously a plainclothes officer; this isn't actually established anywhere in the article however.

Haven't done any source checking yet, but I should be able to get access to a few of them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public/Caeciliusinhorto Apologies for the delay. I believe I've addressed all your concerns but happy to talk about it if not. Let me know if you need any help with source checking; the two journal articles are both accessible via TWL and I own physical copies of all the books. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2023 [5].

Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC), Muwatallis II (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, this article is about the Chilean cruiser Esmeralda, a warship that marked an important milestone in naval design—albeit a short-lived one. This was the world's first protected cruiser, a type that made Esmeralda's builder a lot of money. The soundness of Esmeralda's design has been debated both then and now, but given the rapidly improving naval technology of the time, it was in any case destined to be quickly surpassed by new warships. Little more than a decade after Esmeralda entered service, Chile sold it to Japan to help fund a newer and larger vessel. My thanks in advance to everyone who takes a look through this article! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Bombardeodeiquique.png needs a US tag
  • File:Tsushima_battle_map-en.svg would benefit from a legend, and what's the source of the data presented?
  • File:Japanese_cruiser_Izumi_at_Sasebo_1908.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Nikkimaria! I've added a US-PD_expired tag and swapped the second image for a regular map. For alt text, I think only one image needs it + the captions serve well enough for the others. Please let me know if you disagree. For the third image, a publishing date is not required per Japanese copyright law, which for this time period needs a publishing or creation date to prove something is in the public domain. I have a longstanding unresolved talk page message related to how the publishing requirement was added to the template. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, does that resolve the issues? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the alts, where the caption is sufficient, an alt of "refer to caption" is preferred to a blank alt, unless the image is unlinked (See MOS:BLANKALT). The new map also needs more specific sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: To me, WP:SKYISBLUE would apply to the map... It has basic first- and second-level locations listed, and that's all. That said, I've replaced it with {{maplink}} and added that alt text to all applicable images. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Good to see you back at FAC.

  • "Constructed by the British shipbuilder Armstrong Mitchell in the early 1880s, the company's founder ...": needs rephrasing; the founder was not constructed by Armstrong Mitchell.
  • The lead says Esmerelda showed the flag and conducted gunboat diplomacy during the Panama crisis of 1885. The body has "the Chilean government sent the ship on an unusual and statement-making voyage to Panama, where it showed the Chilean flag alongside the great powers" with no more details about what Esmerelda (or the Chilean government) did there. Do we need both "show the flag" and "gunboat diplomacy" in the lead?
  • Suggest linking to "Navy_Directory#Background" instead of to wiktionary for "stricken"; the wiktionary sense is hard to spot on that page. You have another link near the end of the article; if you do want the duplicate link I would make the same change there. Are "struck" and "stricken" synonyms in this usage?
  • In the "Background" section I think it would be worth giving the date of the end of the War of the Pacific (presumably April 4, 1884, when the Treaty of Valparaiso was signed), and the date of Esmerelda's completion, making it clearer that she never participated in that war.
  • I initially read "developed it from the Japanese cruiser Tsukushi" as meaning that the ship that became Esmerelda was originally destined to become Tsukushi. The next sentence clarifies the situation, but how about "who based the design on that of the Japanese cruiser Tsukushi" or something similar?
  • "Nathaniel Barnaby, the Director of Naval Construction for the British Admiralty, (the department in charge of Britain's Royal Navy), would later write that ...": don't use both parentheses and parenthetical commas.
  • Per MOS:TYPOFIX you can correct "Chili" to "Chile", unless you feel it's significant in some way.
  • "This perspective was part of a larger effort to draw attention to the underfunded and under-equipped state of the United States Navy." Does this mean that the quote just before this should not be taken at face value?
  • We say it "lacked a proper conning tower", but later that "the conning tower was provided with its own 1-inch armor".
  • "While the British government upheld its neutrality through the active prevention of warship deliveries to the countries involved in the War of the Pacific, Esmeralda was finished after the conclusion of the conflict and arrived in Chile on 16 October 1884." Presumably the Chileans knew about the British policy. If they knew they would not be able to take delivery till the War of the Pacific was over, I think that should be clearer in the "Background" section where the war is discussed as an incentive for the order.
  • "She did not find them, although Abtao would later join the rebels." Suggest "and" instead of "although"; there's no contradiction here.
  • "which bombarded the positions of the Presidential troops until they finally capitulated": I think you can drop "finally".
  • "fired three shots to alert the Presidential forces of the arrival of the Congressionalists": I think it should be "to the arrival", not "of", but why would Esmeralda want to alert the enemy?
  • "with a successful result": a bit vague -- what actually happened?
  • "Renamed Izumi, the Japanese Navy": needs to be rephrased; the Japanese Navy was not renamed. Perhaps "It was renamed Izumi and employed by the Japanese Navy in ...".

All fairly minor points; looks good overall. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Mike Christie! I didn't even have a chance to leave you a talk page message before you caught this. :-) Thanks so much for this review. I've tried to address all of your thoughts, and some specific points follow:
    • "Struck" and "stricken" are synonyms in naval parlance. I've added a more specific links to wikt:stricken#Adjective, as I'm looking to give the definition of the word. Does that work?
    • The Background section: I added "Esmeralda was the most capable of these ships, and although British neutrality meant that it could not be delivered until after the war's conclusion, the Chileans ordered it with the intention of gaining naval superiority over their neighbors", citing Grant's Rulers, Guns, and Money. I haven't added the requested dates for the end of the War of the Pacific/Esmeralda's completion, but I can if this change is not enough to satisfy your point.
    • The conning tower point is tricky. It had a conning tower in the sense that the position was used like one, but unusually it was not one of the best-protected areas on the ship -- it was only protected against rifle fire. I've added the rifle fire bit to the article, and could swap "proper" for "full-fledged" if that makes more sense?
    • Three shots: that's an excellent catch. I went back to the source and clarified that the ship's crew was alerting the Congressionalists to their arrival. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fixes all look good. Re the conning tower, how about saying it lacked a "fully-armored conning tower", if that was the main shortcoming? And one more point I just noticed: you refer to Esmerelda almost throughout as "it", but in the "Chilean Civil War" section you twice use "she", which I assume is an oversight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've gone with "thickly armored," if that works? From the descriptions in sources, it sounds fully armored... just not against naval guns. :-) I've also added an explanatory note in the article for that + addressed your second point. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Changes all look good. Perhaps "heavily-armored" instead of "thickly-armored"? But either is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • It's only taken us ship types a dozen years or more to notice, but Conway's is actually an anthology with each navy's chapter written by various contributors. And Gardiner is the editorial director, not an actual editor of the volume.
    • Fun fact, I've actually been doing this for over a decade now. ;-) I've no clue how I missed it here, but it's now fixed. I kept Gardiner as an editor because I imagine he still took on some editorial duties... thoughts?
  • You have a habit of shortening page ranges instead of expressing them fully in the References section.
    • I used to shorten them all the time, but that was later disallowed by policy! I believe I've fixed them.
  • A lot of journal articles are missing page numbers.
    • Added. There's one left that does not have page numbers in the online copy.
  • Italicize ship names when they appear in article titles.
    • Done.
  • It would be nice to see some ISBNs (or OCLC numbers for older titles). And ISSNs for journals
    • I've added these for all that I can! Mechanical Engineer either doesn't have an ISSN or isn't coming up in a search.
  • While I can't really speak to the Spanish-language sources, the English ones are known to me as highly reliable.
  • Although surely you can find something a bit more academically inclined than the Encyclopedia Britannica for the Esmeralda Affair?
    • Britannica is only being used as a source for the name (i.e. to support calling it the "Esmeralda Affair"), and I don't have a replacement for it.
      • Scratch that. Some Google searching revealed that Lauderbaugh, a source I'm already using, calls it by the same name.
  • Formatting of the endnotes is consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cplakidas

[edit]

Looks interesting, reserving a spot. Constantine ✍ 10:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: - are you still anticipating making a review here? Hog Farm Talk 03:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Yes, within the next two-three days at most. Constantine ✍ 08:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Design
  • despite the determination of ... the Ottoman Empire ... to remain neutral in the conflict AFAIK the Ottoman Empire purchased its warships abroad during this time, so why is this relevant?
  • for the earlier Japanese cruiser Tsukush 'earlier' is vague, the date of construction should be provided here, or, if it was the immediately preceding design, replace with something to that effect.
  • link commerce raiders?
  • nearly 400 tons less armor, which was about 3.5 percent of the ship's total displacement. it may be unclear at first reading what 'which' refers to, i.e. the 400 tons, or the entirety of the ship's displacement. Perhaps 'nearly 400 tons less armor. The Esmeralda's armor totalled only about 3.5 percent of the ship's total displacement.' or similar?
  • especially as Esmeralda's armor deck gave it a margin of safety shouldn't it be 'armored deck' or 'deck armor'?
  • Esmeralda's ten-inch (254 mm) guns caliber in mm given here but not in the two previous mentions in the same section
  • Link Vavasseur mounting
Chilean service
  • This arrangement would later become known as the "Esmeralda Affair" not entirely sure what this affair was and why it was scandalous (was it the bribe, or that he handed over a powerful warship? was the transaction hidden from the Ecuadorian populace/parliament?)
Japanese service
  • Deployed alongside much of the rest of the Japanese Navy, Izumi was assigned to a green water blocking squadron and a blue water attacking fleet I had to read this a couple of times before it dawned on me that this refers to its role in the exercises. Perhaps an additional clarification is in order.
  • the Japanese cruiser Akashi struck a mine link to naval mine
  • link auxiliary cruisers
  • the former Prime Minister of Japan and the first Japanese Resident-General of Korea Itō Hirobumi this reads as if they are two different people; suggest striking the second 'the'.

That's it. Although I had no knowledge of the context of this ship's history, I was able to grasp the article easily, and learned a few things in the process. A very well-written article. Constantine ✍ 17:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Cplakidas, for your very close read of the article. I appreciate the eye for detail! I've addressed all of your comments. The trickiest one was the Esmeralda Affair—the scandal was that it was negotiated in secret and facilitated with bribes, so I've tried to clarify that in the text. To your Ottoman question, I added "new and old warships" to the section. The source, Grant, says that the Peruvian government approached the Ottomans with the goal of buying one or more of their existing warships. The Chileans got wind of this and asked the British to diplomatically intervene. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Jeune École". Foreign words should be in lang templates, not just in italics.
  • Link treatise.
  • "the emerging Jeune École school of French naval thought". Yu have already said that the Jeune École school was French. Does that need to be repeated? Ditto "naval".
  • "Armstrong had or would soon be constructing protected cruisers for over a dozen countries." This doesn't quite work grammatically. Perhaps 'Armstrong was or would soon be constructing ...'?
  • "including its propulsion plant and magazines." The bit about the magazines does not seem to be a summary of anything in the main article.
  • "a good portion of the ship". "good portion" is ambiguous. Perhaps 'large part'?
  • "an Admiralty comparison of Esmeralda to the Mersey design". Optional: → 'an Admiralty comparison of Esmeralda with the Mersey design'.
  • "which measured out to about". Suggest "measured out" → 'was'.
  • "ten-inch ... 10-inch ... 10-inch ... ten-inch ..."
  • "it was 1 inch (25 mm) over the important machinery". Perhaps 'it was 1 inch (25 mm) thick over the important machinery'?
  • "the various sources of information about the incident ... do not agree with that interpretation". Just to be clear, they argue that none of the documents support an interpretation that that Esmeralda was ordered to block an annexation of Panama?
  • "Esmeralda engaged in a prolonged chase with the steamer Imperial". This reads as if they were jointly pursuing some third party, which I assume is not what you wish to convey. Maybe "with" → 'of'?
  • "to allay suspicion". Is it known whose suspicion they wished to allay?
  • "Itata reached Chile without incident". Possibly 'Itata reached Chile without further incident'?
  • "but was returned to San Diego with the acquiescence of the Congressionalists." Why was she returned? Who to? Or just to pick up a further cargo of armaments. How did the acquiescence of the Congressionalists enter into this?
  • "while kicking off the successful Liberal Revolution.". I am unsure that "while kicking off" is encyclopedic.
  • "(respectively)". I don't think that parentheses are needed.
  • "warned off an army hospital ship and troop transport". Was one vessel fulfilling both these roles? If not, can I suggest 'warned off an army hospital ship and a troop transport '.
  • "the Japan Weekly Mail reported". Is it necessary to give the source in line? You don't for anything else. Providing hte information in Wikipedia's voice seems acceptable.
  • "¥90,975". Any, even approximate, idea as to what this equates to in today's money? Or even in 1912 in a more familiar currency.

Welcome back to FAC. You haven't lost your touch. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog the Mild, thanks for the review and the compliment! I've actioned most of these with some comments below:
  • I won't have access again to Sondhaus until tomorrow, at which point I'll address the "including its propulsion plant and magazines" point.
  • "various sources": I've added "necessarily" to better convey the ambiguity.
  • "allay suspicion": Do the next sentences about the Itata incident not answer that question? :-))) I've edited the sentence.
  • "returned to San Diego": I've rewritten the sentence. "Itata reached Chile without further incident, but to put a halt to the escalating situation, the Congressionalists sent the cargo ship back to San Diego with its cargo intact."
  • Japan Weekly Mail: this wording is strange because I was writing around the newspaper saying it would happen, vs. reporting later that it did happen, leaving room for changed plans. Normally I might just drop the info, but it's a rare useful example of the type of task the ship would have been asked to do during this time. Thoughts?
  • I learned awhile back that currency conversions with things as large as warships can be problematic. (See the discussion beginning "how is the sale figure denominated in the original source".) That said, this smaller scrapping bid might be more appropriate than converting the original cost of a full-fledged capital ship, particularly if it's in 1912 values. Let me know what you think. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2023 [6].

Hurricane Ophelia (2005)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After letting things sit for a bit I've decided to bring this back to FAC for another go. The previous nomination failed after becoming stale, but I firmly believe it remains at the highest quality the site has to offer. For newer reviewers, I hope you enjoy the read on this oddity of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has had (passed) a CCI check; see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ophelia (2005)/archive1#CCI check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Licence and use of the files seems OK to me, but File:Ophelia 2005 rainfall.gif should probably have a link to the source webpage, not to the actual file URL. ALT text seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the link for the aforementioned file to the Ophelia page ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added a revised version of the track map: File:Ophelia 2005 path.png. This has slightly different colors that adhere to MOS:ACCESS per a recent RfC. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker: will be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "it organized into": that seems an odd use of "organized". Transformed or changed would be better. (If it's standard terminology for weather systems, then it may be OK, but it's a borderline WP:JARGON point.
  • "dissipating on September 23 over the North Sea": looking at the track map, that's not the North Sea: it's the Norwegian Sea. (I appreciate the source may say something different, but it's wrong, if the map is anything to go by: it may be worth doing some searches to see if there is anything that says Norwegian Sea, and if not, just leave as is. At some point someone from Norway will comment on it!)
  • "2,000 people utilized": used? (It's normally always better to go for the shorter more simple word)
Background

Done to the end of Origins: more shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Fluctuation
  • "anything but straightforward": again, this should be reworded, rather than quoted
  • "This marked the earliest formation of a season's fifteenth named storm.": I'm not sure what this means
    • It's the earliest date the 15th storm of a given season formed. Basically the rate at which storms were forming, in this case it was faster than ever recorded within the hurricane center's database. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North Carolina impact
Florida
Elsewhere
Canada
Southeastern United States

Done to the end of Southeastern United States; more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing once more

North Carolina
Aftermath

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review SchroCat! I've either addressed or replied to all of your comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work - I'm happy with the changes (or the explanations), so happy to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

[edit]

I started a review last time, but an unfortunately-timed bout of Lyme disease forced me to drop out of reviewing. Ticks are not very active this time of year, so hopefully I can see this through this time. I will add comments in the near future. I do ask that you check if my comments from last time have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're doing better Trainsandotherthings. Thank you for coming back to this review. I had either replied to or addressed your comments on the previous nomination. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unusually busy in real life lately (didn't even touch my computer at all yesterday) but I will get to the current review hopefully tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Meteorological history

Preparations

  • The hurricane's erratic movement led to watches and warnings being issued for a much larger region than necessary across the East Coast of the United States, with some forecasts calling for landfalls that did not verify. You have two Sfns here to the same source, these should be combined into a single Sfn which has the two page numbers in question.
  • Link Hurricane Katrina as the first mention in the body.
  • I recommend reorganizing the Florida paragraph so all sentences discussing beach erosion are next to each other.
  • Governor Mark Sanford requested the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to suspend transport of Katrina refugees to the receiving center in Charleston and Colombia. Two issues here: the first instance of the word "to" should be removed, and "receiving center" should be "receiving centers" as you list two locations.
  • In Chatham, Massachusetts, This link should probably be unpiped, as you use the exact full name of the article in the prose already.
  • The Halifax Daily News described city residents as "surprisingly complacent", with media broadcasts "[not] ...at all". I don't understand what this means, especially the second half of the sentence.
  • Will continue soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

Note to coordinators – I will be traveling a lot for the next two weeks and will have limited access to computers. I don't use my phone to edit Wikipedia so I will likely be unable to respond to comments for a little bit. Any comments I do not address by tomorrow will be taken care of when I return home at the end of the month :) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Licensing satisfactory, source links working -- pass. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]

I'll start this shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, only the 171 references. No wonder nobody picked this one up already!

I'll start off by checking the formatting.

  • No publication year required for ref #10 "What is UTC or GMT Time?" – not given in the source.
  • Ref #50 "Beven & Cobb 2006, p. 4, 16." should use "pp." not "p."
  • Ref #82 "Ophelia Weakens" is an AP article, so to maintain consistency with your other citations, should note that.
  • Ditto for ref #83 "Ophelia", which is a continuation of the same article. Though see my later point (#137).
  • Ref #118 "Hurricane Ophelia": should this list Mark Malsick as the author/editor?
  • Ref #132 "Ophelia unearths medical artifact frrom Blackbeard's ship" is an Associated Press article, so to maintain consistency with your other citations, should note that.
  • Ref #137, I find it slightly odd that you've split this within the reference, when similar wasn't done for refs #82 "Ophelia Weakens" and #83 "Ophelia", for example.
  • Ref #154, no need for the period before GIF.
  • Refs #156, #159, #160, be consistent whether "Federal Emergency Management Agency" is the author or publisher.
  • "Beven, Jack L.; Cobb, III, Hugh D." I believe, per MOS:JRSR, this should be "Beven, Jack L.; Cobb, Hugh D. III"
  • Searches in all the normal places don't reveal any obvious omissions.
  • Spotchecks carried out for source/text integrity, and for copyvio, close para-phrasing:
    • "The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active on record at the time by numerous metrics, with 28 tropical or subtropical storms forming throughout the year. It also proved to be a ruinous year, with thousands of fatalities and more than $100 billion in damage." Cited to ref #1. I am concerned about close paraphrasing between the first sentence, and the source: "By almost all standards of measure, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active of record. Twenty-eight storms—27 tropical and one subtropical—formed during the year.."
    • "Later on September 9, Ophelia began moving slowly northeast in response to a mid-latitude trough." Cited to ref #22. All fine.
    • "..convection became increasingly organized as it moved back over the Gulf Stream." Cited to ref #33. All fine.
    • "Already suffering from a volley of six hurricane impacts since 2004, concerns were raised over Ophelia's potential effects in Florida. With an uncertain track, the main issue presented was beach erosion, especially in areas significantly affected by Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in 2004." Cited to ref #53. All fine.
    • "In Chatham, Massachusetts, fishermen moved their boats to sheltered areas while the local harbormaster ensured docked vessels were properly secured." Cited to ref #91. Minor concern between "fishermen moved their boats to sheltered areas" and "fishermen were moving their boats to sheltered waters".
    • "A teenage surfer went missing about 200 yd (180 m) off the coat of Folly Beach. Rescue operations for the surfer were suspended on September 14 due to continued rough seas." Cited to ref #70. All fine, and I fixed the typo in this.
    • "President Bush signed this request October 7, designating ten counties (the requested six plus Brunswick, Dare, New Hanover, and Pender Counties) as major disaster areas." Cited to ref #159. All fine.

Nothing much of concern here; out of seven spotchecks, two have very minor close para-phrasing concerns, and the formatting and consistency points are pretty much all minor niggles. I'm pretty happy that this is a well-sourced and accurate article, nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to go through all of these, Harrias! I went through and made the suggested corrections, the ref #82/83 was something I tried to find a year ago and never could so I gave up trying to match it with #137. I'm unsure how to address concerns of close paraphrasing with the first spot check. For the second one, would changing "sheltered areas" to "safety" fix the issue? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that would be enough for the second. Looking at the first one again, I think any change would make the wording too awkward, especially as a lot of the language used is common terminology that it would be weird to avoid. On this basis, I've made the tweak to the second myself, and I'm happy to mark this as passed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial #

[edit]

If Harrias's source review works out, I'll look in tomorrow UTC, although im in no way a subject expert, so will be restricted to for formatting/MOS/prose aspects. Etc. SN54129 21:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial Number 54129, I think it's ready for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 and Gog the Mild: just wanted to follow up since it has been over a week. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I'm uncertain of what to do at this point since I don't want to pester SN54129 if they're not up for reviewing or if time is not allowing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, let's just pester him anyway... Okay, SN, this is your final boarding call, if you can't make it we'll understand... 😉 Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a consenus to promote without SN, and it's past last call. This nomination doesn't have to go home, but it can't stay here. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2023 [7].

Guitar Songs

[edit]
Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 12:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After months away from FAC, I am back with more Billie Eilish; that is, if you disregard this blip. Today we set our sights on a EP---a quirky one, for it has only two tracks. But despite the brevity, these two tracks are confessional and pensive enough to leave a lasting impression. One "explores the topics of abandonment issues and a desire for numbness as a distraction from the problems that plague the world", and the other is a very detailed chronicling of a car accident experienced by Eilish's very close friend. Ready for any and all comments. :^)

A little aside: @Indopug, since you opposed the last FAC, you might interest yourself reviewing the parent article now, but of course you are in no way obligated to comment again. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 12:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review

[edit]
  • File:Billie Eilish - Guitar Songs.png has a clearly defined purpose within the article. The WP:FUR is complete, and I appreciate the archived version of the source link being included. There is also clear and appropriate WP:ALT text.
  • Everything looks solid with File:BillieEilishO2160622 (44 of 45) (52152978743) (cropped).jpg, but I think it would be beneficial to include in the image caption what year the photo was taken to provide a fuller context to readers. This is not necessarily required though, and it is more of an encouragement on my part.
    • I chose not to include the year because I feel readers can glean from the prose anyway roughly when it was taken; it makes the caption clunkier as well.
  • I have a question about File:Billie Eilish - The 30th song sample.ogg. The caption and the WP:FUR are focused on the song, but from my understanding, if an editor is using an audio sample for an album (or an EP in this case), it should be restricted to something that is representative of the release as a whole and not just an individual song. While I do understand the EP is only two songs, I think it should be remembered that it is encouraged to keep non-free usage to a minimal, and the caption and the WP:FUR seem better suited to justify the sample's inclusion in an article about the song not the EP. Would there be any way to reframe this as being representative of the EP and less about the song as an individual release?
  • Everything looks appropriate with File:Cloud Forest, Gardens by the Bay, Singapore.jpg, and I will assume good faith that it really is the uploader's original work.

I hope this review was helpful. Everything is solid with the images, but I do have a concern and a question about the appropriateness of the audio sample for this particular article. Please let me know if you have any questions and I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Aoba47, and likewise! I'm off to see a therapist appointment later in the day, so my mood's particularly up this weekend. Hope life is treating you well. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 02:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very prompt responses. I hope you have a solid and productive therapy appointment. It is always good to be in a good mood. I plan on being productive and using this weekend to hunker down and get a lot of off-Wiki work done. At least hopefully. Anyway, this passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • the song is titled after November 30, 2021, -- think it should be, the song title is a reference to the 30th day of November...
  • Eilish and Finneas played "TV" again and "The 30th" for the first time during the Asian leg of the world tour, and the two performed them in Singapore in collaboration with its tourism board to promote the country. -- Perhaps this can be shortened to the tracks being performed as part of her world tour or during the Asian leg of her tour, something along those lines. Since the details can be found in the body.
    • That would be inaccurate considering they performed TV in the Oceania leg too (New Zealand, Sydney). I think it is notable to mention when The 30th had its debut performance, and it is also only fair given that it says when TV had its debut, hence the specificity.
  • starting the end of the year -- by the end of the year
    • Done
  • someone close to her fell victim to a car accident -- we can refer to this as her friend a friend was involved in a car accident
    • Not done. For one, I try to make sentences like this in active tense. The next problem - the previous sentence's subject is Eilish and Finneas, and if we go through with this change, we make it ambiguous which among the two has the other person as a friend.
      • Someone close to her was involved in a car accident is much better I think. The other seems a bit informal. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMO "was involved" does not do justice to how much physical and emotional trauma the friend went through in the crash. Changed to "nearly died", which is a blunter approach.
  • Eilish wrote "The 30th" on December 30, 2021, virtually immediately -- remove virtually
    • She didn't really write it immediately - I had been writing down all these thoughts that I was having. I was with Finneas, and I was like, "I'm sorry, I don't know what you were planning on doing, but we need to write this song about this right now" - hence the need to clarify almost immediately. She could have been writing down her thoughts for, say, a few days.
  • a 2022–2023 world tour in support of Happier Than Ever -- name the tour instead
    • "embarked on the Happier than Ever, the World Tour" .. ? no, too clunky for me
  • Eilish, who has a track record with political activism -- Eilish, who is known for her political activism
    • Her activism is merely ancillary to her career as a musician, and to prove otherwise would require a preponderance of sources that agree she is known for that. I doubt when critics and musicologists look back on her career as a whole they're going to say it like dat. I feel like we should not assume that the general audience knows Eilish specifically for that one thing, too.
  • her rights as a woman were getting stripped away -- were being stripped away
    • You right for dat
  • Weeks after writing "TV" had ended -- maybe after she finished writing "TV" or something along those lines instead of using ended.
    • Changed to "finished"
  • Eilish debuted "TV" via a live performance with Finneas -- since it was performed during the tour, one would assume it is a live performance, Eilish performed "TV with Finneas, who provided...
    • Partially done - it is important to highlight its status as a debut performance so I don't see why you removed that
  • This marked the first time since around 2017 -- since 2017
    • We haven't played a new song live before it's out since 2017 or 2018 is the relevant quotation here
  • without prior warning -- maybe something like without prior promotion or marketing campaign
    • Changed to "prior announcement"
  • and it includes "TV" and "The 30th", tallying two songs for the track list. -- maybe the latter isn't needed anymore, since it is distinguishable that there is only two singles based on the track titles given.
    • Is it, though? I would agree with you if it said "consists of 'TV' ...", but "include" doesn't preclude the possibility that other tracks may be present in an extended play.
  • "TV" had higher peaks than "The 30th" -- "TV" peaked higher than "The 30th"
    • Not done. "X peaked higher than Y and reached the top 40 in five more territories" implies that the peak positions for "TV" were higher than "The 30th" only in those five territories. However, "TV" outpeaked it in every territory where "TV" charted. The issue here is that "peaked" is a transitive verb (it must come with an object, in this case "territories", so it will inevitably restrict the topic.)
  • Songwriting for "TV" and "The 30th" was co-handled by Finneas, who produced both songs -- "TV" and "The 30th" was co-written by Finneas, who also produced both songs.
    • Done
  • explores the topics of abandonment issues -- abandonment only, perhaps link it to abandonment (emotional)
  • shared by an unknown NME author -- perhaps remove unknown; our use a writer or a critic from NME.
    • Removed the "unknown" bit

That's all I have from a prose perspective. Overall a good read and another great article re Eilish's work. Hope you had a chance to see her live during the tour's Manila stop. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving the comments, @Pseud 14. Everything should have a response. Quite a bit of rebutting there, so bear with me. Re, the last part: since tickets here are expensive, I couldn't exactly attend the Eilish concert... to be fair I can't afford any concert by any international act either 🤭 ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 22:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the replies except where I have stated otherwise. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ping Pseud 14 ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 23:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]
Prose review
[edit]
  • "Its release came as a surprise, a decision that she made" - same meaning with one word less
  • "Written in December 2021 after Eilish saw a friend experienced a near-death car crash, the song is titled after November 30, 2021, the date when the accident occurred." I would simplify it as "Written in December 2021, the song references November 30, 2021; on that day, Eilish saw a friend experience a near-death car crash."
  • "..formulating ideas for songs that she wanted to"
  • "The first song that they wrote"
  • "..I was like, 'I'm sorry, I don’t know what" - there's a curly apostrophe in "don’t". Per MoS:', we should only use a straight one.
  • "during which she was busy with writing another song" - I know most of the suggestion so far are cutting one word but if its absence conveys the same meaning, we should always remove it.
  • "By July, "TV" and "The 30th" were the only songs that the two had made"
  • "After a discussion with Finneas, she decided to exclude them from the third album's track list" - if she did indeed do it, I would remove "decided to" and say "excluded them.."
  • "made Eilish in par with" - shouldn't it be "on par with"?
  • "Other music journalists focused on how the EP was produced" - I would just say "..focused on the EP's production".

Just some minor prose suggestions here and there but a great read overall. FrB.TG (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Should all be done. Thank you for the comments; relieved to see that the article's pretty much up to code already. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 00:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
[edit]
  • Spot-checks: ref. 30 (it confirms the quote "increasingly confident" but I'm not sure "Billie Eilish is already moving on to new sounds and ideas on Guitar Songs, a two-pack of acoustic tracks that could either be a gesture toward a new sonic and lyrical direction, or a stopgap between best-selling full-lengths" necessarily counts as "improvement in Eilish's technique"), 51, 56, 67, 90, 93,
    • Removed the "technique bit"
  • Ref. 69 does not load for me.
    • The problem was because the link used an "HTTPS" protocol - it seems like it loads only when the protocol is HTTP
  • I'm not sure Stereogum is an FA-quality source.
    • Replaced with the Variety source, which has the relevant quotation in full anyway
  • Same concern for Bandwagon.
    • The author's LinkedIn suggests some ok credentials (loads of student journalism in Temasek Polytechnic, entertainment journalism for a major Singapore newspaper, etc). This and this (the latter is from another Singapore newspaper) are linked on their about page. All three websites, to me, say there is very likely an organized editorial division in Bandwagon, and from a quick glance at their other articles, no red flags arise wrt journalism ethics.

FrB.TG (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @FrB.TG. thanks for handling both the SR and a prose review :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 15:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick fixes. After checking spot-checking three more sources, I can confidently pass this source review and support this article for promotion. FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chris

[edit]
  • "The EP marks Eilish's new body of work since" - think there's a word missing here and it should be "The EP marks Eilish's first new body of work since"
    • i'll stick with just "first" - "first new" is redundant imo
  • "The EP contains two tracks that she considered including for her third one" => "The EP contains two tracks that she considered including for her third album" (the words are too far removed from the mention of her second album for readers to automatically release that "third one" means "third album")
  • "She debuted its first one" => "She debuted the first song" or "She debuted the first track"
    • Done both
  • "Eilish went on the Apple Music interview" - don't think this works. Maybe "Eilish gave the interview to Apple Music"....?
    • Rewrote, but not in the way you suggested because it doesn't gel for me either
  • "and a similar sentiment was shared by an NME author. The author wrote" => "and a similar sentiment was shared by an NME author, who wrote"
  • Notes b, c and e do not need full stops
    • Done both
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2023 [8].

Hey Stephen

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a lesser-known song by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, written for an album when she was 18 years old. I listened to this song after the highly publicized Taylor Swift masters controversy and I hate to admit I love the song more than I expected to. I believe this article is comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written for the bronze star. Any and all comments are very much appreciated, Ippantekina (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GPT-4-assisted Esculenta

[edit]
ChatGPG-aided review
I'll give this a try; this will be a little unusual. I'm conducting this review with assistance from the recent ChatGPT incarnation, GPT-4, and will be using this to help assess adherence to FA criteria 1a, 1b, 1d, 2a, 2b, and 4. I've fed it the entire article, and have asked the bot questions about it. The article's strengths, according to GPT-4:
  • "Comprehensive coverage: The article provides a detailed account of the song's background, writing, release, performances, music and lyrics, critical reception, and personnel involved in both the original and re-recorded versions.
  • Use of sources: The article cites a variety of sources to support its claims, including interviews, reviews, and other media publications. (note: I have not specifically entered in criteria to assess reliability of sources, so take this one with a grain of salt)
  • Organization: The article is well-organized, with clear section headings and a logical flow of information.
... and weaknesses:
  • Limited critical analysis: While the article summarizes various critical opinions on the song, it does not provide an in-depth analysis or exploration of its themes or impact on the music industry.
  • Potential bias: The article predominantly focuses on positive reception and highlights of the song, which may give a skewed impression of its overall reception."

I asked it "Do you think the article meets the Wikipedia Featured Article criterion: "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"? Give examples to support your decision."

GTP-4: "In my opinion, the article meets the Wikipedia Featured Article criterion for being well-written, as it features engaging and professional-standard prose. The article is comprehensive, informative, and demonstrates a consistent flow, making it easy to understand and follow.
  • Examples to support this decision include:
  • The opening paragraph provides a succinct and informative summary of the song, its background, and its reception. This paragraph sets the stage for the rest of the article and provides the reader with an understanding of the song's context.
  • The "Background and writing" section details the songwriting process and inspiration behind "Hey Stephen," providing quotes from Taylor Swift herself to give a personal touch to the narrative. This section demonstrates the professional standard of the prose by weaving together both facts and direct quotes from relevant sources.
  • The "Music and lyrics" section discusses the song's musical elements, genre, and lyrical content. It provides specific examples of the instrumentation used in the song, as well as references to critical analyses that help the reader understand the song's musical and lyrical significance.
  • The "Critical reception" section presents both positive and negative reviews of the song, showcasing a balanced and unbiased perspective. It cites multiple sources and provides examples of the specific praise or criticism given by each reviewer.

I tried to get it to probe for weaknesses in prose: "Are there any sentences where the prose could be improved to be more engaging and of a professional standard? Please give examples."

GTP-4: "While the article is generally well-written, there are a few instances where the prose could be improved to be more engaging and of a professional standard. Here are some examples:
Original sentence: "It is written in the key of G major and Swift's vocals span one octave, from G3 to G4."
  • Improved sentence: "The song is composed in the key of G major, with Swift's vocals covering a range of one octave, extending from G3 to G4." In this revision, the sentence is slightly restructured to flow more smoothly and maintain a more professional tone.
Original sentence: "Stephen Barker Liles, a member of the band Love and Theft, inspired the song."
  • Improved sentence: "The song was inspired by Stephen Barker Liles, a member of the band Love and Theft." By reordering the sentence, it becomes more concise and easier to understand.
Original sentence: "The song received mostly positive reviews from critics."
  • Improved sentence: "Critics predominantly offered positive reviews for the song." This revision adds some variation to the sentence structure and makes it sound more engaging.
Remember that these improvements are subjective, and different people may have different suggestions for enhancing the prose. The overall quality of the article is already quite high, but these minor adjustments can help to further polish the text and align it with the Wikipedia Featured Article criterion for well-written prose."

Me: "Do you think the article meets the Wikipedia Featured Article criterion: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"?"

GTP-4: "Based on the information provided in the article, it seems to meet the criterion of being comprehensive, as it covers major aspects of the song, including its composition, lyrics, production, and critical reception. The article also places the subject in context by discussing its inspiration, Taylor Swift's career at the time of the song's release, and its impact on her subsequent work.
The article addresses the following key aspects:
  • Background and inspiration: The article explains the circumstances surrounding the creation of the song and the real-life inspiration behind it.
  • Composition and lyrics: The article discusses the musical structure, key, tempo, and lyrical content of the song, providing an understanding of its overall composition.
  • Production and release: The article provides information on the song's production, its release as a single, and its inclusion on Taylor Swift's album "Fearless."
  • Critical reception: The article summarizes the general critical response to the song, including both positive and negative reviews.
  • Commercial performance: The article outlines the song's performance on various music charts and its certifications, highlighting its commercial success.
  • Music video: The article describes the music video for the song and its reception, offering insight into the visual interpretation of the song.
  • Impact and legacy: The article discusses the song's influence on Taylor Swift"

Me: "Do you think the lead section is appropriately concise, summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections?" (i.e. criterion 2a)

GTP-4: "Yes, the lead section appears to be appropriately concise, effectively summarizing the topic and preparing the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections. It provides a brief introduction to "Blinding Lights," touching on its release, style, critical reception, and commercial success. By offering an overview of the most important aspects of the subject, the lead section sets the stage for the more detailed information found in the rest of the article."

Me: "Do you think the article stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style?" (i.e. criterion 4)

GTP-4: "Yes, the article seems to stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses a summary style. It presents a concise overview of the song's background, composition, production, release, reception, commercial performance, music video, and impact. The article refrains from digressing into tangential topics or providing excessive information that would detract from the primary focus. Instead, it offers readers a coherent and structured presentation of the subject, making it easy to understand and follow."

Me: "what are the drawbacks to the article and potential areas of improvement?"

GTP-4: "While the article is generally well-written and comprehensive, there are a few areas where it could potentially be improved:
  • Prose improvement: Some sentences could be rephrased to make them more engaging and professional. For example:
  • Original: "It has been widely regarded as one of the best songs of 2020." Improved: "The song has garnered widespread acclaim, with many considering it among the best songs of 2020."
  • Additional sources: The article could benefit from the inclusion of more diverse and authoritative sources to further support its claims and add depth to certain sections.
  • Impact and legacy: While the article mentions the song's critical reception and commercial success, it could delve deeper into the impact the song has had on popular culture, its influence on other artists, and any long-term effects it has had on the music industry.
  • Images and media: Including relevant images, such as the single's cover art, or embedding a video of a notable live performance, could enhance the article's visual appeal and provide additional context for readers.
By addressing these areas, the article could become even more comprehensive and engaging, further meeting the Wikipedia Featured Article criteria."

Ok, sorry for the wall of text but I thought the analysis would be interesting for other reviewers, in terms of what this (and similar) tools can do at this time. In general, the chatbot seems to like the article and thinks it meets the FA criteria it has assessed, although it suggests some possible improvements. I hope these comments are interesting and perhaps useful. Esculenta (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esculenta, I appreciate your review aided by ChatGPT, but I think some comments are out of place i.e. some bits mentioning "Blinding Lights" (which is a Weeknd song?) or "It has been widely regarded as one of the best songs of 2020." (this song was released in 2008). Not sure if you could double-check the review and remove where it doesn't fit with this FAC? Much appreciated, Ippantekina (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Much of it is fine, mind, but owing to the obvious drawback of AI-generated content, of course there will be ones that are confusing.
To provide examples for broader comments. "It does not provide an in-depth analysis or exploration of its themes or impact on the music industry" or "it could delve deeper into the impact the song has had on popular culture, its influence on other artists, and any long-term effects it has had on the music industry" should not be applicable points to make when discussing an album track that barely charted. The "prose improvement" comment provides no real improvement; it just makes it more wordy. Let alone saying the article discussed the key or tempo or the song had a music video, a major impact on Swift, or a single cover---all of which are nonexistent.
@Esculenta, I noticed through your contributions that you have begun using GPT to review GANs and FACs en masse. If you were indeed to continue using it for such a purpose, I highly recommend you practice oversight with the reviews it generates by making sure they match with the article. This should be a given, because it seems you yourself seem to acknowledge that the text generator has limitations. Thank you. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to add a support/oppose on any FACs, this was basically a trial run to see if there was any output that might be useful for improving the article; feel free to ignore or hat this conversation. p.s., most of the reviews are at peer review. Esculenta (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eli

[edit]

For your handy comments at my Open Arms (SZA song) GA, I want to give back and review this. Seems like it's been cooking for a while now; good job with the expansions.

  • Several words you can opt to cut:
    • "which was released" the "which was" can go.
    • "Continuing on" the "on" can go
    • "Swift chose to write songs" "chose to write" can be simplified to "wrote"
    • "could relate to her songs" can be trimmed to "relate to Fearless"
    • "Swift touring on the road" simply say "Swift's touring"
    • "starts with Swift's hums [...] the track ends with her humming" merge into "starts and ends with Swift's hums", which the Sheffield source can on its own support
    • "has her singing with girl-group-styled ad-libs" simplify to "features girl group–styled ad-libs"
  • Reword to "girl group–inspired" and "upright bass–propelled" with an en dash per MOS:SUFFIXDASH; the hyphenated versions look clunky. Ensure the necessary tweaks happen on the prose too
    • The prose also says the ad libs are girl group–inspired. You may wanna note this in the lead
  • "included 'Hey Stephen' to the set list" nitpick - on the set list, perhaps?
  • "has a face" breaks the tense consistency and can give readers whiplash. Perhaps rewrite to " had a 'face' ", enclosing in quotation marks only the word face
  • Do we need to hyphenate high school and fairy tale?
  • Include "a 2019 public" in the masters controversy wikilink so it doesn't run afoul of MOS:EASTEREGG
  • The link to masters is missing
  • Ditto MOS:SUFFIXDASH with "Big Machine–owned masters"; should probably change that to "Big Machine–owned ones" to minimise repetition
  • Speaking of repetition, "Swift's lead vocals at Swift's home studio" and "charted on singles charts"
  • MOS:NUMNOTES says "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures", so keep that in mind when listing chart peaks
  • "McBride's husband John's recording studio" clunky; "the recording studio of McBride's husband, John"
  • "such as waiting for somebody by the window[b] and rain[c]" with this structure, the implication is that waiting for somebody by the rain is one of these motifs that "Stephen" embodies, which it does not; make it the first item in the list
  • "Kelsey Barnes commented" 1) repetition and 2) WP:ELEVAR. It doesn't hurt to use "wrote" as main verbs for some of these
    • For example, "dubbed the track 'hummable pop' " -> "wrote it was 'hummable pop' "
  • "Telegram & Gazette said;" that semicolon should be a colon (MOS:")
  • "selected the song as an example of Swift's songwriting on the album" this kind of writing works better if we're discussing this in the composition section, but this is a review we are describing
    • Suggestion: "Rosen wrote the song was exemplary of Swift's songwriting on Fearless and therefore made the album's 'peculiar charm' stand out: 'Her music...' "

This article is insanely close to FAC quality, so once again props to that! Do ping me when all the issues have been resolved/responded to. Love lots, ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 09:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Your Power, thanks for chiming in to review this article! I have addressed all except the hyphen v. endash issue. I wrote i.e. "upright-bass-propelled groove", "girl-group-influenced drums", "high-school and fairy-tale imagery" to comply with the rule for hyphenated compound modifiers. I do agree with the endash thing on "Big Machine–owned masters" though. I stand my ground that the hyphenated compounds are the way to go, don't you agree? Ippantekina (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I actually changed them to i.e. "girl-group–inspired". Hope this makes sense! Ippantekina (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina ? This is not quite right. "girl group" does not act as a modifier towards "inspired" here; in fact it's the other way around ("inspired" acts as a suffix towards "girl group", which side note is not hyphenated). By this logic, the hyphen is not necessary.
If you remain unconvinced that it should have a hyphen, a compromise you can pick would be to reword the relevant phrases entirely to avoid any confusions that may arise from these constructions. E.g. change the lead's verbiage to "...song that features drums inspired by girl groups, a groove propelled by an upright bass, and a subdued Hammond B-3..." or tweak a phrase in the music section to "singing with ad-libs evocative of girl groups" ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 11:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked for now! I'm still dubious (not to question your or anyone's credentials though, just that I often see phrasings like "country-music-loving red states" or "gossip-tabloid-reading moms") so might Gog the Mild want to weigh in on this? The use of "girl-group-inspired" vs "girl group–inspired" vs "girl-group–inspired"? Ippantekina (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth I believe that "girl-group–influenced", as currently in one of the captions, is correct. The "drums and vocals" is a synonym for "influenced by girl groups" and so "girl group" is the modifier. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. Either way this comment is on a nitpick level, and nothing is really stopping me from a support. Thank you for addressing things quickly and for your patience. I hope you have a nice weekend! Love lots, ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 06:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • Taylor Swift albums discography can be linked to "studio album".
  • "By re-recording them, Swift had full ownership of the new masters..." I would replace "had" with something like "gained".
  • Introduce Christopher Rowe before mentioning him.
  • Ditto with Serban Ghenea.
  • "Swift released a snippet of "Hey Stephen (Taylor's Version)" onto her Twitter account..." Forgive my ignorance, but would it be "onto" or "on"? I am unsure.
  • "The title character..." Change "title" to "titular".
  • Who is Kelsey Barnes? She could use an introduction.

That is all. Rather on the short side, but hey, what can we expect from a four-minute song? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in to review, Unlimitedlead. I have resolved all except: 1, the link to "studio album", which I find unnecessary.. 2, introducing Rowe and Ghenea, as these two are already introduced with context (i.e. Rowe produced/ Ghenea mixed...) introducing them again (i.e. "producer Rowe produced/ mixer Ghenea mixed...") is rather redundant. Happy to resolve any remaining issues. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Optional: "for her second studio album, Fearless (2008), released by Big Machine Records." IMO this would read better as 'for her second studio album, Fearless, released by Big Machine Records in 2008.' Similarly for "her re-recorded album Fearless (Taylor's Version) (2021), which was released by Republic Records."
  • Link unrequited love.
  • "but a few regarded the track as generic". The article does not use the dimutative "a few", nor imply this. Which makes me suspect that either the lead or the main article need tweaking.
  • Changed to "some"
  • "if Stephen was a real-person name". This is a little clunky, in that "Stephen" is obviously "a real-person name". Could it be phrased a little more felicitously
  • Tweaked.
  • "including the masters of Swift's albums the label had released" → 'including the masters of Swift's albums which the label had released'?
  • Done.
  • "By re-recording them, Swift gained full ownership of the new masters". I think I know what you are saying, but this struggles. Eg, what is "them", and Swift didn't gain "full ownership of the new masters", she always had it.
  • "including the copyright licensing of her songs". Again, she didn't "gain" this. Could the situaion be explained in a little more detail?
  • "which devalued the Big Machine–owned ones." What does "ones" refer to? Songs, new maters, something else? And "devalued" in what sense? Monetary terms?
  • Explained.
Suggestion: "Swift had full ownership of the new masters, which enabled her to control the licensing of her songs for commercial use and therefore substituted the Big Machine–owned masters." → 'Swift had full ownership of the new masters and substituted them for the Big Machine–owned masters, which enabled her to control the licensing of her songs for commercial use.'
  • "The re-recording of "Hey Stephen", subtitled "Taylor's Version", was released as part of Fearless's re-recording, Fearless (Taylor's Version)." It seems to me that this sentence would read better if it were in chronological order. (Ie, at the end of the paragraph.)
  • Tweaked.
  • "Maria Sherman of NPR Music said it evoked classic Motown girl-group record". Does "it" refer to the drum beat?
  • Yep.
  • " "Hey Stephen" both starts and ends with Swift's hums". Do you mean '... Swift humming'. (If not I am unsure what you mean.)
  • Yes; tweaked.
  • "has her singing with girl-group–styled ad-libs." Do you mean 'has her singing with girl-group–style ad-libs.' Or is "-styled" acceptable in US English?
  • Tweaked.
  • "the track ends with her humming to the band". You have already said that it ends with her humming. How is it known that she was "humming to the band"?
  • That's what the source says. Should I tweak it?
Weell, if the source explicitly says so you don't have to. But one wonders if the source isn't using a bit of artistic licence. Let it pass.
  • "lyrical motifs that recur on many of Swift's other songs". Should "on" → 'in'?
  • Tweaked.
  • "waiting for somebody by the window." "the window" or 'a window'?
  • I'd keep "the window" as it's a common phrase, at least in American English.
  • Is there any critical reception relating to "Hey Stephen (Taylor's Version)"?

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion above, which I think may clarify a sentence a little, but supporting nonetheless. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog the Mild. I have addressed your comments accordingly. Let me know if the prose needs additional work! Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review

[edit]
  • File:FearlessPrudentialCentMay2010.jpg has a clearly defined purpose in the article and appropriate WP:ALT text. I would modify the parenthetical year in the image caption as I initially thought it mean the tour was only in 2010, and that is obviously not the case so I think (pictured in 2010) would avoid that potential misinterpretation. Both the source and author links work. It is not required for a FAC, but it may be nice to archive both, although I tend to recommend archiving pretty much anything to avoid potential headaches with link rot and death. On a non-reviewing note, I like this photo.
  • File:Hey Stephen by Taylor Swift (sample).ogg has a clearly defined purpose in the article and a complete WP:FUR. Both the audio caption and the WP:FUR do a solid job in my opinion of justifying the sample's inclusion. The sample length is appropriate given the length of the actual song.

Everything looks solid here. I would just change the one thing about the year in the image caption. Apologies for this super nitpick-y remark. I have honestly never heard this song before, but I am not super well-versed in Swift's catalog. Once my point has been addressed, this passes my review. Aoba47 (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the media review, Aoba47. I have amended the caption. The photo reminds me of the simpler days when I was in middle school and saw images of a country-bumpkin Swift everywhere lol. I found nothing on the Wayback Machine but have captured an archive of it; will add it shortly as the Wayback Machine is overloaded atm... Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my point. This passes my image and media review. Not too sound weird, but there is something sweet about this image to me. There is a nice simplicity to it if that makes any sense. I would be curious to know how Taylor Swift would react if she ever found out about the work editors like yourself have put into her Wikipedia articles. Best of luck with the FAC and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bilorv

[edit]

I also started listening to Taylor Swift after learning about the masters controversy and this song is one I very much enjoy but hadn't thought deeply about. Knowing who Stephen is and recognising what I like about the musical style (like the ad-libs, humming and other embellishments) will enrich my listening experience going forwards. This is mostly a source review but I have also considered the other FA criteria.

Spotchecks: #6, #21, #22, #27, #34, #38, #65, Spencer (2010).

Unusually, I couldn't spot a single issue with any of the spotchecked sources/prose content. Every source appears reliable to me, including a few I wasn't familiar with and investigated. I couldn't find so much as a comma out of place in the reference formatting.

Some wording change suggestions, but feel free to reject:

  • Repetition of "some" could be avoided in: "some reviewers remained positive but some regarded the track". For instance: "some reviewers ... while others".
  • "where she included 'Hey Stephen' in the set list" would be more concise as "where the set list included 'Hey Stephen'"
  • "Midway through the performance, Swift went down the aisle" – Took me a couple of reads to get that this was during every performance of the tour (or at least the established routine through the tour). Maybe changing "went down" to "would go down" would make this clearer.
  • "The decision came after" repeats "after" from the previous sentence, so perhaps "The decision followed" is cleaner.
  • "waiting for somebody by the window" – I think it being specifically a "bedroom window" (as the source says) is key to the imagery.
  • I don't get: "which biographer Liv Spencer attributed to the impact of Swift's touring that 'sometimes means too many goodbyes'". To make the construction simpler, it might be split into two sentences and/or the quote from Spencer could be avoiding by rewriting in your own words.

The article is comprehensive, the music sample is well-chosen and well-captioned and is overall in excellent shape. — Bilorv (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: thanks for taking time reviewing the article! The suggestions definitely helped finesse the prose so I acted them accordingly. Many thanks, Ippantekina (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on the article, Ippantekina. I'm very happy to support, on sourcing and on the other FA criteria. — Bilorv (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bilorv. Just want to share that I was also in sort of the same boat with you. On first listen "Hey Stephen" was rather dismissive (I only focused on re-recordings of "Love Story"/"You Belong with Me") but on second listen the humming caught me off-guard. Didn't pay attention to the back story but after improving this article this track now ranks highly on my T-Swift playlist. Matter of fact it ranked #1 on my Apple Music Replay last year... Ippantekina (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • "It features a production that critics described as "smooth" and "playful"" → per MOS:QUOTE, "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion"
  • Songwriting Universe → website title appears to be Songwriter Universe
  • Yahoo! article is from PopCrush, which I don't think is a high-quality source. The original Boot article is here, which I would cite instead

That's it! Heartfox (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heartfox, all done. Regarding the first point, as writing the sources in prose is rather clunky, I resorted to include them in footnotes, which is acceptable per the MOS. Ippantekina (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The song is not a controversial topic, so I think that works. It does say that "critics described", not that it is, so that should be fine. Support. Heartfox (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 April 2023 [9].

William D. Leahy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about William D. Leahy, who was America's most senior military officer during World War II, but probably the least well known of the seven five-star officers. Despite (or perhaps because of this) there is a fair bit of scholarship about him. He is the subject of four PhD theses used in the article. The article did well on DYK, and will probably be quite popular as TFA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]
  • Signalling intent to comment here Eddie891 Talk Work 13:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a full review yet, but per MOS:CITELEAD O'Brien's direct quote in the lead should probably have a cite with it, and in the body of the article the reader would presumably benefit from knowing who the first most powerful man in the world was. There's an implication that it's Roosevelt, but there are a number of other global leaders it could have been-- Eddie891 Talk Work 13:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Every other power in the world was 'reactive' to American decision making. As Leahy had more influence than anyone not named Roosevelt or Truman, he was even more powerful than leaders of other nations such as Winston Churchill or Joseph Stalin." (O'Brien, p. 3) On reflection, I have removed the quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wisconsin Legislature in 1872," This reads confusingly because you just established that they were living in Iowa in 1875. How does Wisconsin fit in to the timeline?
  • "He had five brothers and a sister" Math is not my strong spot, but 5+1+1 = 7. What happened to the eighth child?
    Borneman says eight, but this must be an error. O'Brien lists them on p. 469 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his paternal grandparents having arrived in the United States in 1836" Why do you mention the paternal, but not maternal grandparents?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know which of Ashland's schools he attended?
    Source doesn't say, but I think it was the original Central High School. [11] A new high school opened in 1904. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a year for the nose break?
  • "but this required an appointment from his local Congressman, Thomas Lynch" Could his senator not have appointed him, or was there a reason this was no possible?
    A senator could have appointed him. Did not mean to imply this. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Down thru early life and education-- I'm not seeing anything major, don't be afraid to push back on any/all of these. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This was the only naval battle Leahy witnessed in person" I'm struggling to find this on p. 25 of the cited source, could you help me out?
    Wrong book. Should be Borneman. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although Leahy did not like their chances if the 4,500 Chinese troops in the vicinity joined the uprising, as they had in the Battle of Tientsin" this feels a little extraneous- is it worth including?
    Otherwise the reader may wonder about the need for guarding the city. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike most Americans, Leahy was appalled by American brutality and the widespread use of torture" My reading of Thomas is that he's only addressing the opinions of American officers/soldiers. Might be worth clarifying, adding another source, or telling me how wrong I am
    My reading is that he is way too generous. But you have a point. I think I could source this, but decided to delete the phrase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whose older sister Mary was engaged to Albert P. Niblack, an officer of the Annapolis class of 1880 under whom Leahy had served" This also feels extraneous, I'd consider removing
    I think I included it to say how they became acquainted, but sure. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Louise subsequently convinced him to convert from Roman Catholicism" My reading of O'Brien is that while Leahy's family was Roman Catholic, he himself would not have identified as much-- specifically p. 26 "showed no interest in theology, the Bible, or religious doctrine." Maybe it would be better to somehow establish in the early life section (though I'm not convinced that it would fit there) that his family was Roman Catholic and just say "convert to Episcopalianism" here?
    • Interestingly, Thomas gets his religion wrong on p. 12, implying that Leahy was an Episcopalian while at the Naval Academy (nothing actionable about that here).
      I think it is fair to say, as O'Brien does, that it was more about Irish identity than any theological or doctrinal issue, although I can imagine fellow naval officers saying "Good career move". Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to add pp. 28 and 29 to the citation for the text "However, he was present for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. His family had to leave their house in the face of the resulting fires..."
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a change Leahy came to see as a wise one" What does this add?
    Emphasis that it was unwilling. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mayo and then his replacement, Rear Admiral William Fullam, was reassigned," I'd think you want to say 'were' reassigned if you're talking about both of them
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in charge of one of the Navy's most sensitive offices. In this role he was in charge of all officer assignments" so was he in charge of the whole office, or just officer assignments? If the first, the second would presumably not be necessary to state
    • Maybe say something like "leaving Leahy as de facto head of one of the Navy's most sensitive offices, overseeing all officer assignments"
      He acted in charge of the whole bureau, but I don't think most readers will realise what the bureau did. Re-worded to make this clearer, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Thomas cited is almost certainly Gerald Eustis Thomas, suggest authorlink
    Author-linked. Good one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Down through Banana Wars. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look so far-- I'll pick up after you've gotten the chance to go through Harry's below, no point in potentially duplicating. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leahy was given an additional $10 million" in addition to...?
    Elaborated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leahy was regarded as one" was regarded but is not anymore? regarded by who?
    Replaced this with a quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roosevelt occupied the captain's cabin, and Leahy the one for an embarked admiral; Marshall, the next most senior officer, had the chief of staff's cabin. The President had his own mess, where he dined with Hopkins, Leahy, McIntire, and Roosevelt's aides, Rear Admiral Wilson Brown and Major General Edwin "Pa" Watson; the other senior officers took their meals with the ship's officers. " The details on where they lived and ate feels like too much detail for this article, especially considering that it was only eight days of his life.
    It was there just to illustrate the pecking order. nLeahy's biographers piush back on claims of marshall's imprtance. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hopkins was diagnosed with stomach cancer, and in December 1937, doctors removed three quarters of his stomach" I'd cut as unnecessary here
    I presume you mean the text and not Hopkins's stomach... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He married Louise Gill Macy in the Oval office on July 30, 1942. For a time she lived in the White House with Hopkins, but she prevailed on him to move out in December 1943. He was therefore no longer at Roosevelt's beck and call" I think this could be condensed to like one sentence. Why do we need to know all the details besides that he ended up moving out?
    Condensed to one sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could that blockquote from Truman be condensed dramatically? Three blockquotes in a row feels like a lot, and I think that adds the least value of the three, imo.
    It is the one that Leahy is most associated with. Removed the middle one instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emphasis on the first use of nuclear weapons" Not sure what 'first use' means here
    Fortunately, there is an article on the subject, appropriately called No first use. Linked. (You'll no doubt be please to know that Joe Biden has reaffirmed America's long-standing commitment to being the first to use nuclear weapons Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • up to the lead: I don't think "An 1897 graduate of the Annapolis," is what you want to say
    Removed stray word. Another object lesson on the inadvisability of trimming text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about it. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, mostly on prose, but I did check a number of statements with a copy of O'Brien and it largely lined up (no copyvio or made up facts to worry about, not that I thought there would be) and got the impression the article was in the right place in other aspects too. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: Could you add a mention of Leahy's memoirs along the lines of "Although Leahy later wrote in his memoirs that [BRIEF QUOTE ABOUT THE BOMB] ...; historian Barton J. Bernstein noted that Leahy did not oppose its use at the time:"? I think this would be a nice balance between the block quote and entirely omitting it. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this would be a reasonable balance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Added. The historiography reveals a gap between the historians of the 1960s and 1970s, who had to rely on sometime self-serving and unreliable memoirs written and those of later decades who had access to primary documents. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Well done on another important article! Comments:

  • An 1897 graduate of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland Location is not really relevant; it hasn't moved, and it would still be the US Naval Academy if it was in Nebraska. If you really want to keep Annaopolis, you could pipe it to USNA but I don't think you need it in the lead.
    I think we've been through this before: the problem is that "Annapolis" is better known than "United States Naval Academy". Piped the former to the latter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leahy saw service in the Spanish–American War, the Philippine–American War, Boxer Rebellion in China, the Banana Wars and World War I I think you need a definite article before Boxer Rebellion (per all the other conflicts mentioned) and a serial comma before the "and".
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one paragraph, you have United States Naval Academy, United States Navy, and U.S. Ambassador to France. I'm aware that two of those are proper nouns, but I think we've well and truly established his nationality and you could afford to lose at least the last one. (I made an edit to this effect to the first paragraph)
    Deleted two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt just Roosevelt (or "the president"); you've introduced him above.
    Changed to "the President"
  • President is not a proper noun unless attached to a name; I'm tempted to say the same of "Chief of Staff"
    1 Corinthians 10:13 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More repetition of US in the third paragraph. It appears three times in a fairly short paragraph, none as part of a proper noun.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like a nice, concise lead but this one could do with a few more details: Why was his ambassadorship controversial? Some dates of battles/promotions/roles held pre-WWII would help to establish a career timeline. How, when, and why did he acquire a five-star rank? You say he was the de facto CJCS but the uninitiated reader might not realise that meant he was head of all the armed forces.
    Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leahy learned how to sail on a sailing ship Redundancy (he wouldn't have learnt it on a paddle steamer!)
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2022, no other class had had more than four not sure that's not trivia; there probably weren't as many opportunities to most other generations given that the navy was in greater demand in the first half of the C20 than ever before or since.
    I think it is important. Obviously part of the reason was World War II, although when the are began there were only four 4-star admirals on active duty (Hart, Stark, Kimmel and King). Whereas today, with no war on, there are... eleven. The other part is the Navy's career policies. The Army equivalent would be the class of 1915 aka the class the stars fell on, which included Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley. But note that they were twenty years younger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was he before he was an ensign? A midshipman?
    Naval cadet. They didn't become midshipmen until 1902. (Already had to revert two IPs who wanted to edit the article without knowing what they are talking about.) They had to serve two years' sea duty before being commissioned as ensigns. They were not commissioned on graduation until 1912. It says this in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On August 28, the Castine was ordered to Amoy help protect American interests there against the possibility of a Japanese coup.[21] The Castine returned to the Philippines, arriving back in Manila on September 16, 1900 Maybe rephrase to avoid the impression that they returned to the Philippines because they were ordered to Amoy?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still an ensign, he was given his first command Possibly off-topic but was this common for an ensign?
    No, it was very unusual indeed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he was present for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake "However" adds nothing here; it's not contradicting the previous statement
    The one that says he missed the birth of his son? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • United States occupation of Haiti, where Leahy again acted as chief of staff, this time to Rear Admiral William B. Caperton. In May 1916, Dolphin participated in the United States occupation of the Dominican Republic We can infer that these were US occupations
    I don't think these are well known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • with what was then a radical new design lose the "what was then" for timelessness
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who had been a critic of the U.S. Navy's gunnery
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in the wake of the the "but" suggests a connection to the previous sentence but I don't see one.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leahy's old friend Franklin Roosevelt just Roosevelt again
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • along with cruisers with a total displacement of 60,000 long tons (61,000 t) and destroyers with a total displacement of 30,000 long tons (30,000 t) I think this is getting away from Leahy, the subject at hand
    Removed the tonnages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • joined his wife Louise
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel some of the detail on the development of Roosevelt Roads is getting off-topic
    Cut back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On February 1, 1941, Richardson was recalled and replaced as CINCUS by Admiral Husband Kimmel not seeing relevance to Leahy?
    It is about Leahy's dealing with Roosevelt, and how he rarely argued with him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fall of France in June 1940 came as a shock to many Americans;[96] Henry L. Stimson and McGeorge Bundy described it as "the most shocking single event of the war".[97] American security had been underwritten by Britain and France, allowing the United States to have a comparatively low amount of defense spending, and planning was based on the assumption that France would be a bulwark against Germany, as it had been in World War I, and that the United States would have ample time to mobilize industry and create armies. Now, with France gone, Germany could directly threaten the United States.[98] I know this is background to his appointment but it's diverging quite a long way from Leahy; can we shorten?
    Merged first two sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leahy sailed from Puerto Rico on November 28, and arrived in New York on December 2, from whence he immediately flew to Washington, D.C., to confer with Roosevelt Is his route really relevant? Surely it's enough just to say that he went to France via DC? Likewise the sentences about his journey from Norfolk to Vichy.
    Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "My major task", Leahy later recalled "was to keep the French on our side in so far as possible This quote essentially duplicates the previous sentence.
  • The paragraph The United States had some levers... doesn't mention Leahy at all; I'm sure it could be condensed and merged with the following one, which focuses on Leahy's role.
    Condensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leahy regarded Hopkins as a "pinko" needs a citation, as both a direct quote and a red flag claim.

    I frequently joked with him about those days and sometimes called him “Pinko” or “Do-Gooder.” He took it all in good spirit and we never had any major differences of opinion. By his brilliant mind, his loyalty, and his selfless devotion to Franklin Roosevelt in helping carry on the war, Harry Hopkins soon erased completely any previous misgivings I might have held.

    — I Was There, p. 138
  • The extensive background on Hopkins isn't relevant; for a biography of Leahy, we should be content that Hopkins' health was the reason for Leahy's increasing influence. I would cull the paragraph after the precarious state of Hopkins's health.
    Cut back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • he accompanied President Roosevelt
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was unnecessary; the two commanders could have sent representatives... not relevant to Leahy
    Cut back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor did he agree with formalizing the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Do we know why?
    Yes. Added a bit more
  • at the age of eighty-four 84 per MOS:NUMERAL
    MOS:NUMERAL: Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need the dates of rank section? It entirely duplicates the prose? And if we must have it, do we need a picture of every rank insignia on every uniform? None of that seems encyclopaedic. I would say the same about the decorations (a Navy Cross for a voyage when he didn't even come into direct contact with the enemy, really?) but I know these enjoy consensus (though I can't fathom why).
    I am very fond of the dates of rank section, as I am often looking up an article to determine what rank someone held on a particular date. I didn't add it though; it has been in the article since 2006. Originally it was a list; it was changed to the current format in 2007. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a long list bust most of it is fairly straightforward. I also made a few copy edits as I went through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there. The changes so far are great. There are still segments where I feel we're getting away from Leahy. This wouldn't be a big deal in a short article but this is a fairly lengthy one (8,200 words excluding block quotes and we've lost ~400 words since the start of the FAC).

  • The "levers" paragraph now starts with Leahy, which is very much an improvement, but then doesn't mention him again; a biography of Leahy should focus on Leahy's role in events.
    Trimmed this a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the detail about the Fall of France could still be consolidated (though this is also much improved to focus better on Leahy). Likewise, the stuff about Richardson as CINCUS is getting away from Leahy; all that's needed is that Richardson argued and Leahy agreed but wouldn't press FDR.
    Trimmed this a bit. We're relying on the reader having the background knowledge to appreciate that a military disaster was in the making. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lengthy block quote from Truman's memoirs doesn't add much and only mentions Leahy in passing.
    Cut this back too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expect I'll support once those three quibbles are sorted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker for when Harry's finished. - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Early life
  • Any date for the photo caption?
    I believe that it is part of a series of graduation photos taken in 1896. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arthur J. Hepburn, Orin G. Murfin and Harry E. Yarnell": you have a serial comma in the lead ("the Banana Wars, and World War I") but not one here and not lower down ("Edwin C. Johnson, Claude Pepper and Sam Rayburn"). I'm not sure whether you're including them or not, but best to be consistent throughout
    Deleted the first comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chief of Naval Operations
  • "Roosevelt won the election with a landslide victory,[72] and on November 10, 1936, it was announced that he would succeed Standley": So Roosevelt succeed Standley?
    Changed "he" to "Leahy". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Governor of Puerto Rico

That's it from me – very scant fare! It's engaging written piece on a very interesting life. – SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]
Descendants of William D. Leahy and the occupants of Leahy House (including Rear Admiral Kurt W. Tidd (in blue shirt)) gather for the renaming of the house in honor of Fleet Admiral William Leahy in 2014.
  • Regarding the opening phrase in the lede: "...the most senior United States military officer on active duty during World War II." Should this be qualified in some way, since he was ambassador to France and Governor of Puerto Rico when the calendar started on WWII in 1939? Its only in 1942 that he is on the WWII scene.
    I think "during World War II" works. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The received version of this history, even for those who had read books about WWII, is that Eisenhower was in charge of Europe, MacArthur was in charge of the Pacific theatre, with Marshall coordinating in DC. If Leahy did have the ear of the president during this period, then it seems to have been somewhat muted. Should the article make more plain the extent and reach of his influence with the president, and in his relative importance next to Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Marshall? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The received version of this history is incomplete rather than incorrect. The article makes it plain that Leahy was senior to the other Joint Chiefs. "Leahy served as the de facto chairman... He considered that this was due to his seniority and not by virtue of his position." And that this meant things like "Roosevelt occupied the captain's cabin, and Leahy the one for an embarked admiral." It also notes how when Roosevelt could only take one military advisor, it was Leahy that he took. The article notes that Leahy saw Roosevelt every day. How much influence he had (and how you would measure it) is debated by historians, but on the rare occasions when it came to the crunch, it was Leahy who won out. The article notes this. During the opening of Leahy house in 2014 (right) Rear Admiral Kurt W. Tidd observed that "When you ask people to name all the five-star naval officers, they get [Chester] Nimitz, they get [Ernest] King, they get Bull Halsey. Almost nobody thinks about Fleet Admiral Leahy." Of course he was talking to naval officers, who most likely had read books about WWII; I doubt if members of the general public could name any of them. When this article was run on DYK in 2022, I got comments like Talk:William D. Leahy#Why have I never heard of him? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm supporting for the prose in this article; my thought is that its worth adding something on the A-bomb use on his watch into the lede section. Its a topical issue now with Putin doing so much sabre rattling in Ukraine. (Separately, regarding your source check for Madison, then I think Cmguy has answered everything there and awaiting a final word from you for support/oppose). ErnestKrause (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Cite 39: I think you have your page numbers wrong. (99-100?)
    Oh dear. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section header "Banana Wars", why the upper-case W?
    MOS:MILTERMS: "Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources". And it is. eg. [12] It is capitalised in our article and category. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 194: any reason why it is used twice when it is the only citation in the paragraph.
    I think I was going to split the paragraph, then reconsidered. Removed the first reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you note, four PhDs theses are referenced. As WP:SCHOLARSHIP in WP:RS notes, PhD these "can be used but care should be exercised ... Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not." In each case, what makes these four reliable sources? In particular, what makes each of them high quality sources? And any comments on the (fifty-year-old) age of two of them?
    All are from reputable universities, and all have undergone review by three external academic reviewers. What set me looking for theses was this review of Adams's 1985 book which criticised him for not referencing Miles. I obtained Miles's thesis, which was not submitted until 1999. It was supposed to appear as a book in 2000, but never did as far as I know. He became a lecturer on military history at Princeton University. That led me to the other PhDs. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1c: "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The article mostly draws upon O'Brien's more recent book though. Holmes (1974) was the best available source for the Vichy period, for I would otherwise have had to turn to Langer (1947); but while I was working on the article, Neiberg (2021) became available, and I incorporated it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable, for the citations for which they used. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. I can find no problems with the formatting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Alt text would be nice, especially for the images with less descriptive captions (File:NH 91537 William D. Leahy as a naval cadet.jpg, File:Puerto Rico 1939, Gov. Leahy (8365155978).jpg; what are the planes we are seeing?)
  • Military images are fine as PD. Harris & Ewing collecting is ok. Things from Navy Museum/Flickr are OK as PD. Yalta image is fine.
  • File:Puerto Rico 1939, Gov. Leahy (8365155978).jpg: why PD?
    Marked on Flickr as "no known copyright restrictions". The image was taken by Robert Yarnall Richie, a commercial photographer, and later donated to the DeGolyer Library, which uploaded it. This is one of six images of Leahy in this series which the library has made available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't determine the source for File:USS Leahy (CG-16) underway in the Pacific Ocean on 1 June 1986 (6417014).jpg
    The supplied link [13] works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason I did not see that first time round.
  • Captions are not consistent in whether they end with a period. or not
    Yes, that is right. MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences but merely sentence fragments which should not end with a period. However, if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then every sentence and every sentence fragment in that caption should end with a period." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they are not consistently following that rule. "Leahy shakes hands with Admiral Joseph M. Reeves (left) on assuming command of the Battle Force in June 1936" is a complete sentence, for example. So is "Leahy pays a farewell call on French Chief of State Marshal Philippe Pétain on April 27, 1942". There are several captions that list people, and sometimes the list ends with a period, sometimes it does not, independent of whether there has been a complete sentence earlier. Compare the captions of File:World War II Joint Chiefs of Staff 1943.jpg and File:80-G-K-13824 U.S.-British Combined Chiefs of Staff.jpg, for example. "USS Leahy underway in the Pacific Ocean in June 1986." is not a complete sentence. This list of inconsistencies is not complete. —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other captions need copyediting/fixing, for example "Appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington, D.C., on March 22, 1939, in support of military aid Latin American Republics." is garbled
    Corrected this one Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I think; caption/alt text work would be especially helpful. —Kusma (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye, can you attend pls? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Somehow it dropped off my watch list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything except for getting the dots right in the captions is OK now. —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worked some of the captions. Should be okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed one more period that you may have overlooked. We could argue whether the presence of "are" in "behind them are (left to right)" gives us a complete sentence that should end with a period, but I think this is a pass now. —Kusma (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 April 2023 [14].

Panagiotis Kavvadias

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Greek archaeologist - one of the most significant figures in the discipline in one of its most important periods. Kavvadias led the Greek Archaeological Service between 1885 and 1909, and was responsible for some of its most significant excavations of the 19th century as well as for completely transforming the way that antiquities and the practice of archaeology were handled in Greece. He was also notable for managing to so totally upset the Greek government and most of the rest of its archaeological establishment that he was eventually marched out of the country, with the official label of "dangerous reactionary".

The article has gone through a GA review from User:Modussiccandi, which gave me the first indication that it might have legs for FAC, and subsequently a peer review from Modussiccandi, User:Gerda Arendt and User:Iazyges. In the course of both, it has gone through substantial changes, and I am grateful to them for all their help so far, particularly as this is my first nomination.

It should be said that Kavvadias is not a well-documented subject, particularly given his prominence at the time. I don't think it's too hubristic to say that this article is currently the closest thing to a thorough biography of him that exists in English, and the most detailed Greek sources (largely, the work of Vasileios Petrakos) don't come close to attempting a whole-life portrait. It's difficult to reconstruct a lot of the fine details and chronology of some important parts of his story, particularly his education and his last months as Ephor General, and there are a few key sections where we're really reduced to one or two sources.

Thank you in advance for your time, comments and assistance.

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that I have signed on as the mentor for this FAC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I gather this would be UndercoverClassicist's first FA if successful, in which case welcome...! As a reminder for reviewers and fellow coords, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing will be required at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: could I just check in as to where this nomination currently 'is'? If I've understood it correctly, this spot-check is the bottleneck at the moment: do I need to find somebody to carry this out, and if so, are there any particular rules or preferences as to whom I should approach? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the nom has been listed for a while at the top of WT:FAC as needing a spotcheck, as well as a general source review for reliability and formatting of references -- I don't know if Tim riley might be interested in the spotcheck if he has time? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to toddle round to the British Library after the Easter holiday to do spot checks. I hate doing general source reviews and am awful at it, so hope you can find another editor to do that. I'll report back on the spot checks next week. Tim riley talk 23:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated - thank you. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

I confirm the support reached in the peer review. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support by Kusma

[edit]

This will be next on my list of things to review. Looks very interesting! —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: I am a bit concerned that the phrase "ΒΜΧς/2626" has no hits outside Wikipedia on Google, and none on Google Books or Scholar. Are there other more widely used designations for this law?
    • This is one I've found very tricky. ΒΜΧς' is a number: in Arabic numerals, it's 2466 (not 2626 as in article; I think that was a misreading or different number quoted in one of the sources.) In Greek, it's universally referred to as νομος ΒΜΧς', sometimes with its subtitle Περι Αρχαιοτήτων (On Antiquities). I've rarely seen it referred to in English by non-Greek scholars: here's one example with the Greek number, the Arabic and the subtitle. With that said, an article published for the Ministry of Culture calls it Law ΒΧΜΣΤ (2646) [I suspect the 'T' is a mistake], and I'm sure I saw 2626 quoted in another source. I wonder whether just 'the Antiquities Law of 1899' might be the way forward? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cplakidas: I imagine this is something you might know about? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: ΣΤ is merely the capitalized form of the letter ς when used as a numeral (e.g. Louis XVI is Λουδοβίκος ΙΣΤʹ). Let me have a look whether I can find the law in question. Constantine ✍ 16:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it: Law ͵ΒΧΜϚʹ Περὶ ἀρχαιοτήτων, issued on 24 July (O.S.) 1899, published in the government gazette on 27 July (O.S.). Constantine ✍ 17:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying! For the article, I would suggest to use something like "the antiquities law of 1899" in the lead and to add the full name/Greek numerals in the body. —Kusma (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both: User:Kusma, I agree and will make that change.
    @Cplakidas: as I'm now thoroughly confused with Greek numerals, can I just confirm what the correct Arabic numerals are? As far as I understand - which isn't far - it should be 2466? Also, is there a reason you've used Ϛ (capital ς?) rather than Σ, ς, ΣΤ... is one seen as more correct than the others? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    'Ϛ' is the form used in the actual document, and the correct contemporary capitalized form of the letter ς. ΣΤ is another way of writing it if you do not have a 19th-century-vintage Greek typewriter at hand, which is why it has become the common modern form (and you found it in modern Greek publications thus). So if you want the original name, it is ͵ΒΧΜϚʹ (with the quotation marks, which are actually part of the numeral). In a modern publication, it would appear as ΒΧΜΣΤʹ, and the Arabic numeral rendering is 2646 (͵Β = 2000, Χ = 600, Μ = 40, Ϛ = 6). Constantine ✍ 18:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you: I'll make those changes. As far as the exact phrasing, I'm leaning towards 'the archaeological law of 1899' in the lead and 'Law 2646/1899 'On Antiquities'' as the full name in the body: there seem to be a million and one ways to refer to these laws in English, but that seems to be the most common (that is, including the year) in HQRS. I'm in two minds about including the Greek transliteration: that would fit the general practice for most Greek things in the article and reflect that the 'real' name is Greek, not English, but I wonder whether appending (Greek: Νόμος ͵ΒΧΜϚʹ Περὶ ἀρχαιοτήτων) to that title is a bit clunky? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    'Law 2646/1899' would be enough IMO, and is also a valid format that a Greek person would immediately recognize. I would only recommend using the original name if you want to reference the original document somewhere. Constantine ✍ 18:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's go with that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His career saw significant modernisation" hmm, could you be clearer on whether this is credited to him?
    • I was trying to thread that needle: I don't think I found a source explicitly using the word 'modernisation' in respect to K. himself (though you could argue that Petrakos' detailed description of the professionalisation of archaeology through his reforms amounts to the same thing), but at the same time, Greek archaeology during his career goes from 1885, when it's a basically-amateur thing conducted largely by looters, self-trained and untrained 'archaeologists', to 1924, when it's a government-run business with a large, Greek-trained and professional body of people working to do it and regulate it, almost entirely thanks to rules and laws that he introduced. Happy to take a steer here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could move this closer to the "energetic, centralising, autocratic" bit and just state he oversaw the professionalisation of his field in Greece. The foreign bodies were equally important for his downfall and for his achievement, so I'm not sure they should be mentioned only for one of them. —Kusma (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair; Bosanquet linked the two in his obituary, but he certainly had an angle on the matter as a British archaeologist and a strong Kavvadias supporter. With that said, I'd be inclined to mention them for both in the lead: they're certainly an important part of his career (and downfall!), and so ought to feature somewhere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now slightly reworked, both in lead and later on. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: Do you think it is not worth linking via {{ill}} to el:Κοθρέας Κεφαλονιάς? I can see arguments either way.
  • Did Kavvadias obtain any degrees during his studies?
    • This is one of the really tricky ones: the sources are almost completely silent on his education, except for the totality of where it happened. Munich is pretty clearly his 'main' archaeological training, and so almost certainly his doctorate, if he held one (which isn't a given: he's variously referred to as 'Dr. Kavvadias' and 'Mr. Kavvadias' in sources, and either would be plausible for a respected academic with or without a degree), but none of the sources actually come out and say as much. I think it's currently as precise as it can be: it's certainly following closely to the HQRS available. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From my searches of the LMU Munich library catalogue, I don't think he obtained a doctorate there (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence though) so there's not much to do here unless you have RS that state explicitly whether he obtained any degrees. —Kusma (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking that: I think we're in the same position, which is that this part of his life is a bit unclear. That's not a total surprise: I'm mindful that most of K's predecessors as E-G have pretty murky early lives before coming into the archaeological service - in the case of his immediate predecessor, we don't even know when he was born! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archaeological career: this seems a bit overly detailed in parts. (Do we need the 1908 and 1913 visits to Same?) The Archaeological bulletin could also be simplified to just "he edited the volumes for 1885 to 1892" or similar, dropping the lack of issues in some of these years.
    • I'm hesitant on 'overly detailed': one of my big difficulties in researching this article was the lack of precision as to chronology, and exactly what K. did when (particularly on the Acropolis). I'm with you on the lack of issues (that's relevant to the article on the journal, not really here), but I think the archaeological visits to Same are useful to anyone trying to reconstruct his biography and/or career, and I'm reluctant to pass judgement on what a future visitor 'needs' to know, and what they'll 'need' to find elsewhere - as I understand it, an FA is meant to be a one-stop shop. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is pretty obvious that anything written in the Greek alphabet is in Greek, and would change some of the {{lang-el}} to {{lang|el}}.
  • "During his period as Ephor General" we don't know yet from the body that he became Ephor General or when.
  • This section seems to be an overview of his career except for the things that are important enough to be their own section. I'm not convinced that this is organised in the optimal way: it is neither in chronological order nor an overview of what follows. I am wondering whether reducing this to an "Early career" section concentrating on the positions held and articles written and moving all the excavations into an "Excavations" section could work better. (But I could be wrong!) Alternatively, make this a chronological overview of the entire career by adding a few sentences about the Acropolis of Athens and Epidauros.
    • Yes, that's an accurate summary of what it is. I think the second approach is better: the problem I had was that an 'Early Career' section leaves some awkwardness (basically, everything after the second paragraph) that doesn't fit nicely around the chronological sections further down.
  • Epidauros: Link to the Ancient Theatre of Epidaurus also in the main text, not just in the image caption.
    • Done.
  • "The building was never fully published" is this archaeologist's jargon/can this be rephrased better?
    • A little: it really means something like 'nobody ever wrote a formal article or section of a book outlining what was known from the excavation of this building'. I'm not sure the best way to say that briefly, but will have a think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've slightly reworked this bit. Different; not sure if better. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping here for now, will continue later. The article brings back very fond memories of visiting Epidauros and Bassae as well as Athens together with my Ancient Greek class back in the 1990s; I had no idea all these excavations were connected to the same person! —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Epidaurus: "the first major ... apart from minor" a bit redundant.
  • abaton: you give all the information via footnote and link to Wiktionary, but I'm wondering whether this wouldn't just be simpler to explain in the main text instead. And... is it the abaton or not?
    • My concern is that it's quite a lot of information to shove into a pair of brackets - it either ends up so long that it disrupts the text, or so short that it's of no help to someone who doesn't already basically know how a sanctuary of Asclepius worked. The identification was controversial at the time; it seems to be generally accepted today, so we could be bold and just say that it is the abaton, perhaps adding a modern source. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in 1896,[13] In 1896, " something went wrong here
  • "third stele of cures" took me a moment to realise that "cures" here means "reports of healings".
  • " All remaining post-Classical buildings on the site were demolished" and there is no criticism of that action?
    • I haven't come across any! You have to remember that, by this point, most of the controversial ones are already demolished: Frankish Tower (in 1878) had attracted some controversy, but largely from the French, who saw it as 'theirs'. Most of what was left on the Acropolis was Ottoman, and there wasn't (and isn't) a lot of love lost between Greece and Turkey: it was just about becoming acceptable to suggest that post-Classical Greek culture was worth preserving (see the comments on 'Hellenism' elsewhere on this page), and nobody in Greece was going out to bat for Turkish culture. If you want a bit of background on how Greeks of the time looked at the Turkish traces on the Acropolis, have a look at the article on Kyriakos Pittakis and this article cited there. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, Perserschutt describes Kawerau as an "architect". Is that correct?
    • A lot of the people working in Greek archaeology at this time are drawing and rebuilding buildings: a lot of those, including Kawerau, have an academic background in architecture, especially because formal archaeological education is a comparatively rare thing. Kawerau did do some building in Turkey after his time with Kavvadias, but also worked on digs with Schliemann and for the Berlin Museum, and ended up as a curator at the Berlin Museum's outpost in Constantinople. I'll amend to 'archaeologist and architect': he's certainly most famous, both then and now, for his work with old buildings. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ephor General: Most of this section seems to be about the fight for control of the Archaeological Society of Athens; only the subsection "Reorganisation of the Archaeological Service" truly is about his work as Ephor.
  • Efforts against antiquities crime: gloss the Aineta aryballos? (I assume it is this aryballos)
  • "formally identified the Byzantine period as part of "Hellenism"" can you elaborate on this? (This is none of the "Hellenisms" mentioned at Hellenism). Is this about identifying East Rome as Greek more than Roman?
    • It's more about officially saying that Byzantine antiquities were the state's 'problem' - until then, 'Greek' history was taken to mean Classical stuff, so if you wanted to bulldoze a Classical temple to build your house, the state would intervene. However, the government and ephorates didn't have a legal duty or real interest in protecting anything from the Medieval or Ottoman periods until the 1899 law, and didn't employ anyone to look after it. Incidentally, the Ottoman period suffered from the same problem well into the 20th century, and arguably still does. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps don't talk about "Hellenism", just say that the protections for antiquities were extended to cover also Byzantine ones instead of just classical ones. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's bigger than that, though: the point in the source is that it's the first time the Greek government acknowledges the Byzantine period as part of its national story, rather than having a narrative that Greek culture runs in an unbroken line from Mycenae to Alexander, goes a little fuzzy after that, and reappears in 1821 for the War of Independence in a glorious resurgence of a pristine fifth-century past. That's really why the law is important: the practical effects are of course significant for heritage management, but it's much more important in the context of how the Greek state defines the Greek national identity.
    There's a bigger story here about how Greece comes to reckon with everything between about 323 BCE and 1821: in archaeology, you've got the squabble over the medieval Frankish Tower (demolished in 1874, and variously seen as an extraneous foreign eyesore or as having just as much claim to be there as the Parthenon). You've also got the Greek language question, where people in the 1830s are trying to re-establish fifth-century Attic as the national language (because the language of the Byzantines is 'impure'), then settling on a compromise with katharevousa but then arguing over exactly how archaic it needs to be... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a short note explaining the gist of the above. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • fake terracotta plaques: if they were fake, why bother?
  • Dismissal: Εntitled "Νeed for Ηonesty" why ΕΝΗ instead of standard Latin ENH?
    For some reason the letters were Greek instead of Latin (indistinguishable in the default font). I've fixed it now that you seem to say it wasn't deliberate. —Kusma (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • why the Piraeus?
  • settled in Paris: not for very long it seems. Was he still in Paris when he was elected representative of Kephallonia?
  • Why could Kavvadias return to Greece and why did he regain all his posts?
    • The government set up by the Goudi Coup was no longer in power - this is the point about Venizelos and the National Assembly. Everything post-1909 is a real black hole: until I found Whitling, I had practically nothing on why he was deposed except vague insinuations about discontent among his subordinates; I then found Petrakos, who looks at the issue through the Archaeological Society and Svoronos rather than through nationalism and the foreign schools. Both move on to other subjects once Kavvadias is out, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administration and legislation: This is more others' view of Kavvadias than the impact of his administration and legislation. Is there a better section title?
  • Personal life: Was he married? I assume you don't know.
    It is strange that we don't have name(s) for the mother(s) of his two notable children. I have some hope that someone fluent in Greek might be able to dig out more, but I certainly won't hold up this nomination for this. —Kusma (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @NickKav: (a family member): I wonder if he knows of any documentation here? I've drawn a blank from obituaries of Panagiotis, Alexander and Epameinondas, although I couldn't find many for Epameinondas. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hand in the Deep: seems like trivia
  • Publications: the "The Excavation of the Acropolis from 1885 to 1890" is in Greek and German, and the name used is "Cavvadias". Full scan here, possibly worth linking to.
    • Cavvadias is just an alternative, now outdated transliteration of Kavvadias (K and C are both Κ in Greek), so I think giving that alternative spelling would create confusion by falsely suggesting that it was a different person. We haven't written his name in Greek for the Greek books, for example. Primary sources use Kavvadias, Cawadias, Cavvadias, Kabbadias, Kavadias and Cavadias in English alone; you see a lot of Cavadie in French, but Kavvadias is by far the most common today and the best fit with modern Greek transliteration norms. Fixed the languages; I didn't realise the template could handle two. I'll add in that link too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable. I made a suggestion how to handle the title translations (but lazily only did the first two). Revert or extend to the rest. —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a strong opinion here: the current template use is odd (giving the language twice), but I'm mindful that this is an English-language encyclopaedia and we usually give the English title of a work as the 'main' one, and then give the original language as a gloss - e.g. One Thousand and One Nights (Arabic: أَلْفُ لَيْلَةٍ وَلَيْلَةٌ, ʾAlf Laylah wa-Laylah)', not the other way around. One option is simply to swap the language templates so that they don't put the language before and after the title. Does anyone else have a view? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally expect to cite a foreign work with its actual, foreign language title as that is the title you need to find it in a library (ideally transliterated if it is in a foreign script). We can translate it for convenience/information, but anything we have translated should not be the 'main' title. —Kusma (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I'll change them all later on. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure all your single and double quotes are in accordance with MOS:"? I think I have never seen an article with so many single quotes.
    • The position we reached (that is, User:Modussicandi and I) at GA review was to follow common usage: double-quotes when someone is actually being quoted (that is, those words appear in a source), and single-quotes for glosses or problematised terms (e.g. 'owners' in respect to the 1834 law, where opinions differed sharply on whether one party could meaningfully be considered to own the antiquities: to use the word owners straightforwardly would be to take one side of that argument, and so break WP:NPOV). I think the article is consistent according to that logic, but please do point out anywhere that it isn't. My understanding of MOS:SINGLE is that it doesn't really have much to say on the use of quote marks for things other than true quotations. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting article. The choice not to present the life in chronological order is probably the right call (so the excavations can be kept together) but it muddles a bit the connections between the offices of Ephor/Ephor General and those he held in the Archaeological Society. —Kusma (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way around this is to 'promote' the Archaeological Society to its own section, and shift a lot of material from the current Ephor General section into there.
It should be said that the waters were pretty muddy - all of Greece's Ephors General after the foundation of the Society were Society men, most of them held high office within it, people often moved back and forth between the two, and it often wasn't clear exactly which of the Society (notionally private) and the State (notionally public) was actually responsible for, carrying out or paying for a particular project. Indeed, a large part of the friction between Kavvadias and the Society is that he's seen variously as trying to further blur that divide (by increasing the state's role in the Society and by using the Society's resources for the state's purposes) and as trying to sharpen it (by pushing the Society out of 'official' archaeology). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done this. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many improvements, especially some of the sectioning / ordering is better now. I'll have another read through soon and then see if I can support :) —Kusma (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article overall, has my support. —Kusma (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cplakidas

[edit]

Congrats to UndercoverClassicist for bringing it this far. I wanted to review this in the peer review, but didn't find the time, so I will reserve a spot here. Constantine ✍ 12:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
Early life and education
  • Did some minor tweaks to links for precision
  • "narrowing and sharpening" this quote should be attributed in-text
    • It's Marchand, who is cited at the end of the sentence. Could you help me understand more precisely what you're asking for: should the citation be repeated next to the quotation, or the name Marchand used in the text? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The latter :).
        • Hm... not totally averse to it, but it's a widely-held opinion that Marchand happens to have articulated in a concise way: it would be giving Marchand rather too much credit, I think, to suggest that it was his idea. We've currently got "has been described as", which is true, and reflects the fact that similar sentiments can be found in other sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmmm, I leave this to you. Perhaps something like "in the words of Marchand...". But it is not a deal-breaker.
            • I've kept that quote as 'has been credited', but added some more context and sources on Brunn, which should help to show that the thesis hangs on more than just Marchand's opinion. I think the article now does a better job of reflecting exactly what about Brunn was so revolutionary and so important to Kavvadias' education, too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeological career
  • Kavvadias returned to Greece, where he entered the Archaeological Service do we know the date (for his return/entry)?
    • No: all we know is that one of his first postings is to Delos. I've skirted as close as I dare to OR by giving the dates of that excavation, which means that his return is almost certainly later than 1873, though you could argue that that was obvious from his age and the number of years he must have spent in education. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • rank of Ephor General position rather than rank, or not? And can we add the identity of his predecessor here? Efstratiadis is mentioned further down, but never properly introduced.
Excavations at Epidaurus (1881–1928)
Excavations and restorations on the Acropolis (1885–1909)
  • Link the Acropolis' monuments, such as the Propylaia and Hekatompedon, to their respective articles
  • There is an inconsistent italicization of transcribed Greek and Latin terms (e.g. opisthodomos vs kouros), plus I would suggest using the {{transl|grc|}} and {{lang|la|}} templates respectively.
    • I've tried to follow usage in HQRS; in particular, if the term is 'naturalised' in English, it shouldn't be italicised. Kouros is pretty reliably italicised in HQRS, 'opisthodomos' isn't. I think I've now used the transl template for all the true transliterations (that is, not e.g. stylobate, which is Anglicised.)
Ephor General of Antiquities (1885–1909)
  • assisted with the planning and design of the Heraklion Archaeological Museum, which opened in 1883 it is important to note here that Crete was not part of Greece at the time, but an Ottoman province. Ditto for the Cyprus Museum, in British Cyprus. Kavvadias was not only active in Greece. Conversely, established operations on the then-independent island of Crete is incorrect; Crete was not independent, and even after 1898 was still nominally an autonomous part of the Ottoman Empire.
  • organised the first international archaeological conference the first such conference generally, or just in Greece?
  • having previously employed only the Ephor General between 1836 and 1866 and between 1866 and 1879?
  • A relatively minor issue, but it pervades the entire article: when relying on Greek sources (or sources written in Greece) there is the need to check what calendar they use. E.g. the dates for the conference of 1905, or two royal decrees are very likely Old Style, as was used in Greece until 1923. That is very much the case e.g. for the date given for the 1910 election.
    • That's a good point: we're almost certainly on OS for most of those dates. What's the best way around this: simply to use the {{Julian Calendar}} template? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I generally follow two approaches: either stick to OS dates as relayed in the Greek sources, adding Template:Greece Old Style dates and the Template:Julian calendar, with dates for events outside Greece explicitly marked as New Style, or use Template:OldStyleDate throughout. If I use a mix of Greek and non-Greek sources, I tend to favour the latter, among other reasons as it makes source verification easier. Up to you, but the difference should be clear to the reader, so only Template:Julian calendar would not be enough.
        • I've gone through, adding Template:Greece Old Style dates throughout. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with it at the moment: the two 'edge cases' are post-1923 dates (presumably we shouldn't add the OS here?) and month-year dates (should we mark 'July 1909' as 'July or August 1909'?). There's also a few points (particularly the Archaeological Society controversy) where a lot of them cluster, and it looks a bit ugly, but that might be a necessary evil. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • You could remove some redundancy, e.g. "Dimitrios Filios [el] resigned on 11 January 1895 [O.S. 30 December 1894], followed by the numismatist Ioannis Svoronos (on 14 January) and the folklorist Nikolaos Politis [el]". As long as the year is clear, and N.S. dates are preferred, not every date has to be rendered in both calendars.
            • I worry that that might be a little redundant: I can see the value where, theoretically, there was only one option, but I worry that a reader would be confused as to whether Svoronos resigned three days or two weeks later. I'm leaning towards keeping the 'redundancy' on the grounds that it trades elegance for clarity, and that's generally something we should do if given the option. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. An extremely well-written, comprehensive, insightful article. I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot from it. Once the minor issues above are resolved, I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 12:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: thanks for the quick response, have replied above. Constantine ✍ 08:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Have made a couple of suggestions above, but otherwise I am happy to Support now. Thank you for this excellent article. Constantine ✍ 10:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Modussiccandi

[edit]

I will write something once I find the time. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I have found. The article is in good shape and I look forward to supporting once these have been resolved. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check

[edit]

I've done a 20% spot-check for accuracy and close paraphrase. No concerns about the latter. Minor quibbles about the former. I have not checked the books in Greek because (a) my schoolboy Greek, such as it is, is that of Xenophon and Euripides and not much use for present purposes, and (b) the British Library apparently does not get copies of books published in Greece.

  • 1a fine.
  • 1b the text says 1 May: I'll take your word for it that this is 13 May OS.
    • I've slightly changed this: B. says 1 May but doesn't specify a calendar. It seems logical and charitable to assume he was using the OS (which means he's off by a day, rather than a fortnight), but that's my own inference; as we're reporting what's almost certainly an error, I've stuck to giving exactly what B. says. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c fine.
  • 1d fine.
  • 1e can't find any suggestion in the source that there were tensions between the two bodies.
  • 1f fine.
  • 1g fine.
  • 10a – "Kavvadias also followed a course in epigraphy at the Collège de France in Paris under Paul Foucart" – the source doesn't actually specify the college at which Foucart taught.
    • No, it doesn't; Foucart only ever lectured at one higher-education institution, so I think the inference is justified, even though we're not 100% certain of Kavvadias' dates in Paris. I've added a citation for Foucart's institution. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10b – "as well as two stelae (inscribed stone slabs) in the Sanctuary of Asclepius" – I have no difficulty in believing that these deux fameuses stèles were from the Sanctuary of Asclepius, but the source doesn't say so.
    • You're right: unfortunately, I can't find another source that gives a specific date for those stelae (Kavvadias is frustratingly vague in his own publication), and they were so famous in their day that it's barely conceivable that Reinach could have had any other stelae in mind. Can we consider this an acceptable amount of dots-joining in the circumstances? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10c – fine.
  • 10d – "In 1885, Kavvadias, the favoured candidate of Prime Minister Charilaos Trikoupis" – the source says it was February 1886.
    • Yes; I'm not sure what Reinach was going on about with that date (it's in brackets, and not 100% clear what it refers to), as the appointment happened in 1885, and he continues later Cavvadias resta éphore général de 1885 à 1909. Perhaps he's trying to say that K. was formally appointed/'crowned' in February, having started work before? I've added a separate ref to the year of 1885; Reinach was needed for Trikoupis. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10e – "the energetic way in which he pursued his objectives" – not sure about this: is it relying on "il déploya une activité remarquable"?.
  • 14a – "In 1881, he published a short history of Greek archaeology" – if this mentioned on p. 129 I must have looked straight through it.
  • 14b – fine.
  • 14c – fine.
  • 14d – fine.
  • 14e – fine.
  • 14f – fine, but it's on page 130, not 129.
  • 14g – fine.
  • 18a – fine.
  • 18b – fine.
  • 76a – fine.
  • 76b – fine.
  • 79a – fine.
  • 79b – fine.
  • 85 – fine.
  • 110 – fine.
  • 111 – fine.
  • 112 – fine.
  • 134 – fine.
  • 135a – fine.
  • 135b – fine.
  • 143 – fine.

My quibbles, above, are minor, and I have no hesitation in saying that in my judgement the article passes the spot-check. (All the same, I'd like the quibbles to be addressed.) – Tim riley talk 10:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time over this: I appreciate the thoroughness and the work that's clearly gone into it. I think I've been able to address all of your points: a little forbearance is perhaps needed on 10b. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fine with me. I don't think we need press the point about 10b. I'll change hats and reread the article as a general FAC reviewer and come back with comments or support shortly. Tim riley talk 12:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

This could have been a dry article for the general reader (e.g. me) who knows next to nothing about Greek archaeology, but it is so beautifully written that it is a pleasure to read. Splendid rollicking stuff about Lambros and the smuggling, for instance, to leaven the scholarly detail. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: it appears neutral and balanced, feels just the right length – enough detail but not an excess of it, the citations are many and varied and range from contemporary to the present, illustrations are splendid, and the prose is top-notch. It is very rarely indeed that I read an FAC without finding something to carp about in the drafting, but I found nothing here. A first-class piece of work – bravo (or, if appropriate, brava)! Happy to support. – Tim riley talk 13:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

General source review (as opposed to spot checks) to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

# 26, 47, 66, 94, 96, 97, 156 should be pp

Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

# 96 & 156 should be an n dash, not a hyphen

Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

# 138 & 139 need spaces after p.

Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

# 31 and 69 are problematic – these should be formatted as the rest of the sources and not two wikilinks and a URL

These now done too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography

That’ll do for a first quick run through, but it’s not a comprehensive review yet. - SchroCat (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more to do:

  • John W.I. Should be John W. I.
  • Ditto Walters W.C.F.
  • Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, has Zachariou's MA thesis been “shown to have had significant scholarly influence”?
    • The position we reached at Good Article Review (that is, User:Modussiccandi and I was that Zachariou, where cited, is simply translating or transmitting information that can be found in Greek sources, nearly always Petrakos or via Petrakos (e.g., where he refers to a government decree or similar). Those Greek sources, apart from the obvious language barrier, aren't very accessible in English. Where Zachariou is used in the article, she's always cited alongside Petrakos, who gives the same information in Greek. Our judgement was that including the Zachariou citations makes the verifiability and 'paper trail' of the article easier for most readers to establish, and that no fact in the article actually depends upon that thesis' authority alone, and therefore that removing the citations would be a loss to the article for no benefit except following protocol: we therefore invoked IAR and, subject to all the caveats above, retained those citations. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • FA sourcing is more rigorous than GAN, but let me have a think on this. Is there not an alternative that can be used on these? - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strictly speaking, we could just remove the Zachariou citations: nothing actually hangs on them, as they're just used in multi-cites with valid and authoritative (but difficult to access) Greek sources. The reason we haven't already done that is as above: there would then be no reason to change the text, since everything would still be adequately cited, so we would only have succeeded in making the article less verifiable (bad) and complying with protocol (which is good, but should never be the only reason to do something with trade-offs). I'll have another look around, but I failed to find another English-language source covering those areas during the GA review: the general picture of sources for a lot of Kavvadias' life and career is quite fragmentary, and there are many parts of the narrative where I could only find a single source that handled it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's best taken out. Just because it makes a connection easier, doesn't mean we should use a sub-standard source. I'm going on what WP:RSC says here: "Where a source is difficult to verify, or in a language other than English, many editors appreciate the courtesy of supplying the relevant paragraph and ensuring it can be read by English language readers. When sources of equal quality are available, the ease of access may be preferred. But if sources of higher quality are difficult to verify, that difficulty alone is not a reason to disregard such sources or replace them with lower-quality ones."
            There is a preferred workaround for this though: WP:RSUE, which again stresses the need for translations to be "of equal quality". RSUE says that "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". Providing a translation from the Greek source solves the verifiability problem without needing to resort to a sub-standard source. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The works for Bosenquet, Costaki and Mania don’t need access dates (they have persistent identifiers, so dating isn’t needed); they are also inconsistent with the others.

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all, but I'll have another full run though once these are all done. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I think I've managed to address all your points. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all that's left on here are:
    • Refs # 31 and 69
    • The Zachariou MA dissertation
    • The double to single quote marks
I've had another run through, and aside from these three points, I think we're pretty much done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost there! I've simply taken out Zachariou; including quotations/translations from the Greek would really necessitate doing that for all non-English references, and there's a lot of those, so I think I'll have to plead the advisory nature of the quoted section from WP:RSUE. I'll have a think about how to do Pausanias: as it's a Classical source, it's not appropriate to simply pick a modern edition and give a page number; the section numbers (e.g. 8.37.3–4) are consistent between editions even if the pagination is not.
I think the best way is going to be via {{cite web}}, with the Perseus project edition as the 'base' and then individual location numbers given for each citation; unfortunately, that website's currently having some problems, so I can't immediately put it into practice. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to use a page number, you can use a location figure instead. If you use the sfn template, put "loc=8.37.3–4" instead of "p=", and all will be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that a Wikipedia article doesn't necessarily follow the styles/conventions of the disciplines about which it writes, but my inner classicist chafes at a citation like "Pausanias 2023: 87.1" (using the date that or, even worse, "Pausanias c.150 CE: 87.1". In the first case, the year is both practically meaningless and possibly misleading; in the second, it's little more than a guess. As a classical text, the way it's cited in the article is the universal way that you'll see Pausanias' work referred to in academic sources (author, title, location). Is there a way to keep the Wikipedia system happy while avoiding slapping a slightly-nonsensical year onto the citation? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concerns, but we have to go with the policies and guidelines of the project, rather than any other system, so it has to be like this. It's not uncommon for old works to be reprinted and the newer version be used in an article, and this is no exception. To soften the jarring "2023" aspect, add the original year (c.150 CE) into the Sources listing for the work. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am with UndercoverClassicist: it would be an aberration to cite a classical source with a date and I would definitely counsel against it. But to perhaps sidestep the issue: since it's a primary issue, using it as a reference in the article is not ideal anyway, so could we replace the Pausanias references with a secondary source? Modussiccandi (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may think it an "aberration", but it's an aberration to have a mix of formats in the sources, and would be enough to fail the source review, which would a sub-optimal result for the article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's workable, since the Pausanias citation is only really for interest: the secondary sources were the ones that made the link between K's discoveries and Pausanias, so they can be what's cited, and interested readers can go there to find the relevant primary passage. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to include the link to Pausanias, you could add it as a footnote (Such as "For the description in the original, see Pausanias, Description of Greece 8.37.3–4"), but also cited to the secondary source. In that way, the primary source is in a footnote for those who want to follow it, but the sources are all done correctly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable solution: refs 31 and 68 now should, I think, do what you've described. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - that's the last hurdle cleared as far as I'm concerned. Good piece of work this. I have only skimmed through so wouldn't feel comfortable officially supporting, but it doesn't matter - you've got more than enough to get over the line now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 April 2023 [15].

1894–95 New Brompton F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following my 21 previous successful nominations of seasons from the history of my beloved Gillingham F.C., I thought I would challenge myself and delve back almost to the beginning of the club's history in the far-off days of the Victorian era. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

[edit]

Steelkamp (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily News is still linked to a dab page. It seems it should link to The Daily News (UK). Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp: - done (someone else got there before me :-)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

The 1st, 3rd, and 4th tables are missing integrated captions and the 5th table is missing row scopes per MOS:DTAB. You can also add alt text to the infobox image using the alt1= parameter. Heartfox (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: - done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

[edit]
  • "The New Brompton club had been formed in May 1893" => "The New Brompton club was formed in May 1893"
  • "The club was invited to join and allocated a place in Division Two, the lower of the new league's two divisions" => "The club was invited to join and allocated a place in Division Two, the lower one of the new league's two divisions"
  • "Ahead of the new season, New Brompton played a friendly against Barking Swifts" => "Ahead of the new season, New Brompton played a friendly match against Barking Swifts"
  • "having been signed by the club after he impressed in an inter-county match between teams representing Kent and Sussex" => "having been signed by the club after he impressed them in an inter-county match between teams representing Kent and Sussex" -- NØ 13:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about the confusion. For clarity, I had not gone through the four smaller paragraph-sections towards the end of the article the last time around. Reading through it now, they seem fine to me. Regards.--NØ 13:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • "led by chairman H.G. Croneen," should H.G. Croneen be wikilinked? Is this person notable enough to have an article?
    • Definitely not. Absolutely nothing is recorded about him in reliable sources (even his forenames) other than that he was chairman of the New Brompton board in the 1890s, so an article on him would never consist of more than a single sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the club also signed Joe Dickenson, formerly of Bolton Wanderers of the Football League First Division.[5][9] Dickenson, who had been born in nearby Chatham,[9] had recently been in the Bolton team which lost to Notts County in the 1894 FA Cup final." This feels repetitive of Dickenson formerly being part of the Wanderers. Perhaps, "and the club also signed Joe Dickenson, a player who was born in nearby Chatham[9] and part of the Bolton Wanderers, which lost to Notts County in the 1894 FA Cup final." or something similar.
  • "Rule's 22 goals made him the team's top scorer; Hutcheson had the second highest total, with 13." This needs a citation.
  • I checked the lede and infobox, and the info there is mentioned in the article.

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed, so I can support. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

More than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC Support

[edit]

Gog, if you can hold off until next weekend I’ll be in a position to review then. I’m a bit tied up in RL until then. Hopefully someone else may pop in before that to keep this alive. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers SC, we'll see how stretchy we can be. Enjoy your Easter. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like the hard lifting has already been done on this. Delighted to read this one – a team playing for the first ten minutes of a match with no goalie speaks of a team of confidence and panache! - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial support

[edit]

Blimey, I think WHU might've still been the Thames Ironworks FC around this time! Nice and historical. Looking forward to giving this the red card reviewing this ASAP :) SN54129 20:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 - actually, Thames Ironworks/West Ham hadn't even been founded yet! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest the first para begins "New Brompton FC was formed..." as this eliminates the repetitive "club". You can link that second usage instead, although not l;inking in the opening sentence is more observed in the breach, etc., I think.
  • "but did not play in any league" - were there any leagues available to them? If not, perhaps clarify that that was why. I.e., you go on to state that the SL was formed a year later.
  • Perhaps worth linking south of England for foreign readers.
  • Is Dickenson's PoB particularly relevant?
  • "known as Gillingham since 1912" - not relevant 18 years early.
  • "at the head of the Leagueists." - see MOS:LQ.
  • "3,000 fans New Brompton were forced to begin..." - missing punctuation?
  • Any idea why the goalie didn't turn up? Classic!
  • In a simar vein, why did Uxbridge only have 10 men?
  • "an Uxbridge newspaper reporter claimed to have heard " - is there any doubt that he did he it, then?
  • 1912 name change correctly mentioned in 'Aftermath' section  :)
    Nice article Chris; thanks for this, and apologies for the delay! SN54129 16:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from KJP1

[edit]
Lead
  • "and went on to clinch promotion to Division One" - "clinch" sounds a bit slangy to me. "achieve"/"gain"/"secure"?
  • "played 15 competitive matches, winning 13, drawing none, and losing 2" - I think MoS suggests 0-9 should be words, i.e., "two". There's another, i.e. 4/four in the next sentence.
Background and pre-season
  • "the ostensibly national Football League included only one club not from the midlands and north of the country" - would something like, "included only one club outside of the Midlands and the north" read a little more smoothly? And the links may help readers unfamiliar with English geography.
  • H. G. Croneen - This [16] makes reference to a New Brompton jeweller called Croneen, and this [17] suggests it’s Horace George, with a shop on the High Street and his own silver mark, but I’d agree there’s not enough for a red link, let alone an article. And this, [18] allows you to buy an example of his work! Football medals a speciality. While page 4 of this [19] suggests his descendants were still going in the 1950s. The name/dates fit, but all OR, of course.
  • "due to the fact that near-neighbours Chatham had already been placed in Division One" - my knowledge of the beautiful game is not extensive!, but I don't understand the causal link. Why should Chatham's placing in Division 1 mean that Gillingham/New Brompton had to be in Division 2? Man U and Man City are very proximate, but they play in the same league. Do the sources explain in any more detail?
  • Unfortunately they don't. All they say is that New Brompton were relatively late applicants for the new league and were effectively told "we already put a club from just down the road into Division One, so you will have to start in Division Two, sorry about that". I can't shed any more light than that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Southern League
  • Player names - these are sometimes given in full, e.g. David Hutcheson, and sometimes with an initial, e.g. A. Russell. This jars slightly with me, but I'm guessing that is all the sources give you? If possible, I'd prefer the first names in full.
  • The first names listed are the only ones I could find in reliable sources. All the newspaper reports I could find, as was the Victorian way, listed only surnames for players. The various books on the club's history list some forenames, but only the ones I included in the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image - Two things. Should there be alt text? This might be challenging as the image is unclear. Second, I struggled a bit with the caption. On rereading, I think it is saying that the right hand stand, shown in the 1906 image, had not been built in 1894, the season being described. I wonder if "(as viewed from this angle)" is necessary? Its removal may make the caption a bit clearer.
Tables
  • Keys - Being super picky, there are two tables where the keys appear to contain superfluous material. Test match details has the usual Home/Away/Neutral key, but the only match listed is N. Similarly, FA Cup match details has an H/A key, but both matches listed were H.
Aftermath
  • "In their first season in Division One, the team finished 6th out of 10 clubs in Division One" - Is the second "in Division One" required?
  • "The club, which changed its name to Gillingham in 1912, remained in the division until 1920 when it was incorporated in its entirety into the Football League to form its new Third Division" - the focus of the "it" threw me slightly, "it" being the league, not the club. Would replacing "it" with "the Southern League" work?
Works cited
Infobox
  • What is this image, [20], from Wikiwand? I'm guessing it's not usable, otherwise you'd have used it!

The above is all pretty trivial, and some comments are by way of suggestions which you can, of course, ignore. Overall, it looks to me like a comprehensive summary of the subject, and I'll be pleased to support once you've had a chance to review. KJP1 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am familiar with that image, it appears in all the books on the club's history. Unfortunately I had a long chat with image guru Nikkimaria and, as the photographer is unknown and I cannot find concrete proof that it was published in the public domain (as opposed to just sitting in the club's own archives) any earlier than 1980, it can't be proved to be free to use. Which is really bloody annoying as it would obviously be an ideal image to use! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JP1: - many thanks for taking the time to review the article. All points addressed other than as noted above, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chris - a pleasure, my rare forays into the world of football are always interesting. As you say, the image is a pity, but not something to stand in the way of my Support. When this makes FA, you should treat yourself to one of Mr Croneen's medals. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Harry Buckland and Alf Meager made the most appearances, both playing in every match." you could probably do without the "both"
  • I would pipe "shillings" to "shilling (British coin)
  • "A week later, New Brompton defeated Sheppey at home to maintain their record of having won every league game.[2] The Athletic News reported that Sheppey had their goalkeeper to thank for keeping the margin of the defeat down, and noted that Russell, New Brompton's goalkeeper, was "almost a spectator".[22]" Would it be useful to mention the match score?
  • "New Brompton's only defeat of the season came on 9 March when they lost 3–1 at home to Bromley." Should this be qualified somehow, i.e., in the league? They lost twice during the season, after all.
  • It might be mentioned that we're talking about present-day Gillingham in the lead, and possibly also where you mention that 17-nil remains the club's leading score after more than a century.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt thank you so much for your review. All done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]

Image review - pass

[edit]
@Gog the Mild: already done but like a dumbass I typed the parameter wrong. Should be sorted now (hopefully) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eli support

[edit]

time off Wikipedia was needed, but now I'm back and ready. the prose is already very good and engaging; all it needs is some trimming. and 've a FAC of my own if you fancy a QPQ ! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 04:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment re. clarity
    • "applied to join the league" readers could interpret it as the Southern League or the national Football League
  • comments re. punctuation
    • some sentences are too long. i'd turn that semicolon to a period
      • "In 1894, New Brompton turned professional and joined the newly-formed Southern League; ..."
      • "Many players from the previous season agreed to professional terms and remained; the club also signed Joe Dickenson ..."
    • "south of England at a time when ..." the sentence where this phrase appears is lengthy to read. add a comma between "england" and "at a time"
    • the reverse of the comma situation is true for "or keeping the margin of the defeat down, and noted that Russell..." I'd remove the comma and change "and noted..." to "It noted..."
    • split "Rule alone scored more goals than the entire team of fourth-placed Uxbridge" into its own sentence
    • "Caversham, near Reading" missing comma after Reading
    • Ditto with "until 1920[,] when the Southern League Division One"
  • comments re. concision
    • "and went on to gain" it already is clear that the sentence presents a chronological order of events
    • "a group of local businessmen" "businessmen" is plural and already implies there is a group
    • "many of the leading clubs"
    • "applied to join the league. The club was invited to join" if they applied and they got in, i think it's best to simply say they got in. "... led by chairman ... joined the [x] league. The club was allocated a place in..."
      • That wouldn't really work, though, because that would leave "Keen to secure a regular schedule of high-quality matches, the New Brompton committee, led by chairman H.G. Croneen, joined the new league", and it wasn't the committee that joined the league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "lower of the new league's"
    • "due to the fact that near-neighbours Chatham had already been placed in Division One" -> "because near-neighbours Chatham were already in Division One"
    • "player born in nearby Chatham" already mentioned chatham was nearby
    • "In front of a crowd of approximately 30,000" 30,000 people speaks for itself
    • "begin the game"
    • "Alf Jenner, normally a forward," -> "the forward Alf Jenner"
    • "who played the whole game with only ten men" if they played the whole game, then they played the game. and if they played the game, then they played
    • "A. Webb scored a hat-trick in what would prove to be his only competitive appearance for the team" -> "A. Webb, who scored a hat-trick, made his only competitive appearance for the team"
    • "having been signed by the club after he impressed them"
    • "their record of having won" "their record of winning" ? I think it's fine to change to this wording, since it doesn't really imply or indicate they'd keep that record forever. though if you disagree, do feel free to ignore
    • "run of victories" -> "record"
    • "The team only scored" the word "fewest" does the job of conveying the significance of the matter
    • "with a record of 11 wins in 12 games. Their total of 57 goals scored"
    • "guarantee the club promotion"
    • "the final game of the regular season" -> "the regular season's final game"
    • "The Southern League ultimately decided to expand" no need to say they decided on a decision. simply say the decision. "the southern league expanded"
    • "During the course of the season"
    • "drew a crowd of approximately 8,000 fans" ditto w previous crowd comment
    • "Harry Buckland and Alf Meager made the most, both playing in all 15 games"
    • No need for "only" in "each missed only one game" and "each played only once"
    • "Webb and R. Read each played once and in both cases it was the player's only match for the New Brompton first team." -> "each played once, their only matches for the..."
  • miscellaneous
    • Recommend splitting everything after "The team's final two games of the regular league season took place on consecutive days" into its own paragraph
    • "more than twice that achieved" clunky. "over twice than those achieved" ?
    • "The match between two teams from neighbouring towns in the Medway area" -> this is a case of WP:ELEVAR. Normally, I'd ask that you trim it, no questions asked. However, if the crowd number was because two neighboring towns in the same area competed, then make the causality clearer
  • @Your Power: - many thanks for your review. All done other than where noted in a couple of places. I'll make a point of looking at your latest FAC - surprised I failed to spot that one :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude thanks! all responses check out. i can confidently support ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
    📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"     07:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
@FrB.TG: - both done. I hadn't connected the article SportsBooks Limited with the publishers of the yearbook, as in the front of the yearbook it gives a postal address for the publishers in Gloucester whereas our article says they are based in York. But maybe they have relocated since 2011? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible. I wasn't sure if they are the one and same at first either but the official website of SB Ltd. lists the book for purchase. Passing SR. FrB.TG (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 April 2023 [21].

Telephone (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get ready to be dialed into Lady Gaga's world with "Telephone", where she delivers a phone-tastic performance that's sure to ring in your ears long after the song ends. Another FAC on a Gaga song by me, have at it. FrB.TG (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • All of the images appear to be appropriately licensed.
  • Usage of the non-free music video screenshot is amply justified by the detailed caption.
  • File:Beyonce.jpg is in use on several websites so it is hard to establish who took the picture but assuming good faith that it is the uploader's own work as claimed.--NØ 14:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The source link for File:Lady Gaga Telephone cover.png is dead (at least on my end).
  • In the lead's first paragraph, there are two sentences that start with the song's title, i.e. ( "Telephone" metaphorically represents) and (Musically, "Telephone" consists), and I think it would be better to vary one instance to avoid repetition.
  • Apologies for being super nitpick-y, but I do not think the word "guests" works in this instance (they go to a diner and poison the guests' breakfast). I would consider people eating at a diner to be more customers than guests. I have not just never seen "guests" applied in this context.
  • This is a random suggestion so apologies again. I vaguely remember the Kidz Bop cover of this song having something weird, and after doing some research, I found a few sources (The 25 Most Ridiculous and Confusing Kidz Bop Lyric Changes, 7 song lyrics that were rewritten to avoid the censors, and The 13 Most Awkwardly Altered Lyrics On Kidz Bop 18) that focus on how the cover changes lyrics to be more kid-friendly. It might be notable enough to mention in the "Other versions" section.
  • For the captions for the Britney Spears, Beyoncé, and Tyrese Gibson images, I would include the years that they were taken to provide a clearer and fuller context to readers without having them click on the image.
  • I have a clarification question about this part (but Spears rejected it). I was curious if we knew for certain if Spears was the one to reject it, as she was under her conservatorship and it seemed like a majority of the creative decisions were handled by others and less by her. Have any sources discussed this? I tried to look it up, but all the sources I found attributed the rejection to Spears so it could just be me speculating, but I still wanted to ask you anyway.
All the sources I found related to it only said that Spears rejected it. I didn't see someone else influenced this decision.
That is what I thought too. It is unlikely that we will ever know the exact nature of how this song was rejected (or how songs in general are rejected as a lot of coverage seemingly links these decisions to the artist when it could be the label, the artist's team, etc.). Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that all of the song's credits not only need to be listed in a separate section, but also need to be incorporated into the actual prose. I did a spot check to judge this, and I only see Paul Foley and Gene Grimaldi mentioned in the "Credits and personnel" section and not in the prose.
  • Quentin Tarantino is linked twice in the article.

I hope this review is helpful so far. My above comments cover the lead and the "Background and release" section, and I will read through the rest of the article later in the week. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Aoba. I have resolved them in parts and will get to the rest soon. FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. Take as much time as you need. I will read through the article more and post further comments when you are done addressing everything. I hope you are having an enjoyable week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, they all should be done now except for where I have left a reply. I hope you're enjoying your week so far, too. :) FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (It was called an album highlight by Nicki Escuerdo from Phoenix New Times, Michael Hubbard from MusicOMH and Evan Sawdey from PopMatters.), I would put the citations in numeric order. I would encourage you to check the article for other instances of this.
I actually put that in order that the publications are listed.
  • I would shorten the start of this sentence (Media outlets The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Belfast Telegraph, Billboard, Vulture and Uproxx ranked "Telephone" as one of Gaga's best songs.) to just Media outlets as I do not think it is necessary to list all of the music publications in the prose.
  • Tanner Stransky should be linked in the article and in the citation.
  • I find this sentence, (Director Jonas Åkerlund and cinematographer Pär Ekberg had to finish filming in two days that involved multiple locations, dance numbers, many extras and busy schedules of Gaga and Beyoncé.), to be awkwardly constructed. I get the meaning, but I think the information could be conveyed better. For instance, when reading it aloud, I found the "two days that involed" a bit awkward. Plus it was unclear on why there was a two-day limit until the end when the performers's busy schedules were mentioned.
  • The cast of Queer Eye did a lip sync performance of "Telephone" on Lip Sync Battle, and it has appeared to have received enough coverage from various sources (Billboard, E! Online, Los Angeles Blade, Out for some examples) to warrant a mention in this article in my opinion.
  • "Telephone" was a lip sync song in the season 14 of RuPaul's Drag Race. Did it get enough coverage to be considered notable enough to be mentioned here? I could not find any real coverage on this, but I only did a superficial look.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything on this either.
  • Around the time that "Telephone" was released, Lady Gaga and Beyoncé had a separate and similar collaboration with a "Video Phone" remix. The "Video Phone" Wikipedia article brings up how critics compared the two songs and music videos, but this article does not address any of that. I would think that would be notable enough to mention in some capacity.

This should be all of my comments, but I will take time over the weekend to read through the article a few more times just to make sure I complete my due diligence as a reviewer and make sure I have not missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review as always. I think I have incorporated them all unless stated otherwise, and look forward to your rereading of the article. FrB.TG (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would find a way to better incorporate this sentence (Nicola Formichetti outfitted the video, which includes fashion pieces by Thierry Mugler and Atsuko Kudo, as well as Gaga's own creative team, Haus of Gaga.) into the section as I am not sure putting it as its own separate paragraph is the best choice.
I have included this in plot subsection following a sentence which talks about the designer of an outfit. Not sure it goes there but I couldn't think of anywhere else where it works.
  • I remember speculation on a sequel to the "Telephone" music video with "Aura" being a popular pick. Gaga teased a follow-up, and it was here and here and here. Have any media outlets further discussed this sequel. To be clear, I am unsure if this should be added to the article. I personally do not see enough coverage even with the three sources I've linked above, but my hesitation is primarily with not wanting to adding speculation or teases that ultimately did not result in anything. With that being said, I still wanted to get your opinion on it either way.
Yeah, I remember that as well but as you said, those were merely speculations, and I don't think this warrants a mention.

These are my last comments. Thank you for your patience with my review and I hope it is not too much of a pain. I had a lot of fun reading through this article. It gave me a lot of nostalgia and memories. It's wild to think that this song was released over a decade ago lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Aoba. Your review was definitely not a pain and was very helpful as always. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it; I also had a lot fun researching the different analyses. It really is strange to think the song/video is now 13 years old; it feels like yesterday when I first listened to it but then again I started listening to Gaga much later. Back then, I was far too young for her stuff and would've been traumatized for life LOL. FrB.TG (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything! The responses above make sense, and I agree that mere speculations should not be included in the article. I was in high school when this song was released so it makes me feel crazy old lol. I support this FAC for promotion and best of luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

Have you ever considered splitting the music video into its own article à la "We Found Love"? Granted it is connected to the song, but I'm just wondering what your thoughts are given that it includes five subsections which is essentially an article within an article. Heartfox (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: I've thought about it and also considered it for Alejandro (song) back when I expanded its music video section but at nearly 5k words, I think this article's size is pretty manageable. The WFL article is already at nearly 6k words even with a separate music video article (3k words) so a song article of 9k words would have been far too big. FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eli

[edit]

Saving a spot ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 04:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is inconsistency with the way you italicize certain italicizable terms in the sources (LA times has the album title italicized, but the MusicOMH one doesn't, for example)
  • Some of these references lead to deadlinks, like the MTV source used in the background and the Popmatters review
  • Some points for consistency re. lead and body.
    • You use "with additional songwriting by LaShawn Daniels, Lazonate Franklin and Beyoncé" in the prose, but the lead has a more wordy version. It would be nice to make the lead word-for-word to condense it.
    • Is there a reason why "suffocation" is in quotation marks in the body but not in the lead?
Background
[edit]
  • Re. the "fear of suffocation" bit
    • You write in the lead that the song is about her fear of suffocation "from the media", but I think it's a slightly off summary of what she said ("Paparazzi" acts as a better metaphor for this). With "Telephone", Gaga was simply fearing that she could not find time for fun given all her work as an artist, media scrutiny or not
    • You can paraphrase the quotations here to avoid repeating the phrase "fear of suffocation" by describing it as
      • "fear of not finding time for fun given the increasing pressure for her to work harder as an artist" in the lead.
      • "fear of not finding enough time for fun because of her work life. She described it as a feeling of suffocation: 'something...' " in the background.
Music and lyrics
[edit]
  • Is there a reason why we are repeating the Personnel subsection here? Seems a little redundant. IMO I'd just stick to mentioning the songwriters, moving that part to the tailend of the succeeding paragraph.
  • "Musically, 'Telephone' has been described as dance-pop." by whom? Also, if there are other sources that describe the genre and none of them contradict what your initial source says, I'd remove the attribution; it seems way too convoluted for what should be a simple declaration of genre.
  • "appears ... in a rapid fire way".
    • Perhaps you mean Bey delivers her verse in a rapid fire way?
    • Shouldn't this be hyphenated? And I feel like this isn't a really encyclopedic term; if this is quoted from the cited source, I'd add the quotation marks.
  • Musicnotes.com is not a reliable source for chord progressions and such.
  • What are Colton's credentials?
Critical reception
[edit]
  • Wood's comment is less of praise and more of an analysis of the lyrics that you can include in the prior section. If you go through with moving this, I'd split the Colton analysis into its own paragraph
  • You can add onto the MusicOMH commentary
    • The source also praises Bey's rapping part in the bridge apart from the bridge itself + the ending, so you may wanna include that too
    • After that, you can add onto the sentence: "saying it was 'briliant [and] maddeningly great'."
  • "believing that the track exudes an excitement that suggests potential derailment" what does this mean? The "most fundamental" bit from the Independent could also use clearer wording
  • You might want to consider mentioning that Independent ranked "Telephone" as Gaga's 7th best song; makes the commentary you mention in the article more valuable
This is already included in the final paragraph. -FrB
  • "Melanie Bertoldi from Billboard..." this is a lengthy quotation, and the only thing worth including here is the "Gaga and Beyoncé have left the listener with just one option: surrender to the dancefloor" bit. Which you can easily paraphrase, e.g. "Sawdey wrote that this elevated the song [...] Billboard's Melanie Bertolodi wrote that this chemistry creates an atmosphere catchy enough to elicit some dancing from the listener."
Music video
[edit]
  • Perhaps links for "original negative", "contrast", and "grain" as used in the article would be beneficial given they're technical film terms that the average reader of song articles isn't really expected to know
  • I synthesized some comments there by merging them into the first sentence of the reception section. Feel free to revert if you wish.
    • You can also add in a footnote which critic from which publication made those comments, to keep it consistent with the prose which lists the authors instead of just the publications.
  • Everything in the first paragraph starting from "Matt Donnelly from the LA Times" fits better into its own paragraph.
  • I don't think Ganz's comments on the feminism count as praise ? Would it be better to make the opening paragraph "Some critics commentated on the video's feminist themes."
    • I also feel like it works better as a second sentence given the "is certainly cinematic and oddly feminist" bit
  • Sandy Rios is a talk host for the oh-so-conservative Fox News, and they aren't exactly what I would call respectable music critics ... I'd remove this.
  • "Yebra wrote that Gaga is criminalized although she is a victim of domestic abuse." I assume his analysis means to say "not only is Gaga a victim of domestic abuse, she has to find herself shackled by the prison system" ? I'd rewrite the sentence as such if that's the case
The source only says "Despite being the victim of an abusive partner, she is treated like a criminal".
  • "authors Lori Burns and Marc Lafrance" ditto wrt credentials
Accolades / live performances
[edit]
  • Looks good to me
Other versions
[edit]
  • "He denied leaking it despite demands" what does this mean?
  • Pempengco is deadnamed; please change his name to Jake Zyrus.
  • Per WP:SONGTRIVIA take good care of including "usage in media" type sentences here. Look at Shake It Off for a good example. Reese Witherspoon's Sing cover has been discussed in depth by multiple RS, and Lupita Nyong'o reached out to TS herself to get approval to use the song (which she attributes to getting her out of a career slump) for a film, a fact also widely covered in media. Which makes these "usage in media" coverage worth nothing in the article. Now, let's look at the "Telephone" one
    • For the Kidz Bop one: the E! ranking is interesting, and it does provide some foundation for possibly including this factoid, being considered a ridiculous lyric change and all. But apart from Idolator, this lyric change is not really covered much, so I'm giving you the choice to remove it or not. I personally prefer removing it because of the scarcity in sources, quite unlike the examples I mentioned.
    • Little Mix. I doubt unofficial poll results from a third-party website regarding the X Factor week count as proper coverage for this cover. There has to be more to this than just a passing "so-and-so covered it". Being released as a single does not make it notable either. Please remove.
    • The one for Glee is definitely worth mentioning here, however.
      • Look at this ABS-CBN piece that summarizes critical and celebrity response to Zyrus's and Michele's cover. There are also some additional details on the commercial performance. If you need some Filipino phrases here translated, just ask me.
      • Here's a BBC piece summarizing how Zyrus introduced his debut appearance in Glee.
      • And another article of a similar nature, this time from GMA.
      • And a Philippine Star article that summarizes how the episode went down, plus more critical response to the episode. (You got LA Times, Billboard, and EW dishing out takes on Zyrus's performance, so definitely worth using this.)
    • Apart from the Glee cover, the one in Queer Eye is the only one here that warrants mentioning IMO. Apart from the Billboard reference, which has some opinions to say about it. You have Entertainment Weekly, Out, Gay Times, PinkNews, and ET Canada that provide you with supple commentary about the cover. Use them to their fullest potential; include details on the performance apart from just saying it existed, and include reactions to the looks, the showmanship, the singing.
  • In summation, I would advise not mentioning how Little Mix and Kidz Bop covered the song and instead focus on fleshing out Glee's and Queer Eye's attempts to do so.
To wrap
[edit]

I have thoroughly copyedited the article in full to address some minor issues in the prose - primarily cohesion, concision, flow, redundancy, and clarity. Nothing about the content has been changed in a major way, which I hope should be fine with you. Feel free to revert any changes with which you disagree.

Those are all the comments I have. Sorry that I've said a lot lol. It's already a pretty solid article; most of it involves tweaking with the prose, anyway. Once all of my comments are addressed, I'll take a look at the article again and see if it merits my support.

And if you have the time and energy, I would appreciate a review of my current FAC, but as always, you are in no circumstances under any obligation to do so. I hope Wiki-life and off-wiki life are treating you well, FrB.TG. Have a nice week ahead! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 04:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Power:, thank you for your thorough review and copy-edits. I believe I have addressed all your comments now. Let me know what you think. I will definitely review your FAC very soon.
Regarding the credits in prose form in "Music and lyrics" section, it was suggested by @Aoba47:. Before I consider removing it, I would like him to weigh in. FrB.TG (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The credits need to be presented in prose form alongside the separate section. There is no ambiguity on this matter. It's similar to the charts. Chart performance of a song is presented in the prose and through tables, not just through tables alone. This section should not be removed for similar reasons. This is a standard aspect of any song article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG, thank you for getting to everything; your effort with this article is phenomenal. Looking back I should probably have restrained myself with my comments - I gave you a lot to work with, and I apologize. Nothing is left for me that holds back a support. Great work. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 03:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No apologies needed. If anything, your meticulous review really helped improve the article. FrB.TG (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GagaNutella

[edit]
  • Infobox is fine per Template:Infobox song
  • Add the "Paparazzi"'s release year in brackets in the lead and synopsis section
  • I don't think we need to put so much emphasis on its production. Just leave it for the credits and personnel section. You can trim the first music and lyrics' paragraph
  • Wikilink Billboard correctly (lead and "Billboard's Jason Lipshutz named")
  • Melanie Bertoldi from Billboard wrote → Melanie Bertoldi, also from Billboard, wrote
  • In the US, the song peaked at number 3 → In the US, the song peaked at three per MOS:NUM
  • and number 1 on the → and one on the
  • It climbed to number 1 → It climbed to number one
  • moved up to number 2 before → moved up to two before
  • "Telephone" peaked at number 2 in Sweden and number 3 in Hungary. → "Telephone" peaked at two in Sweden and three in Hungary
  • reached a peak of number 3 → reached a peak of three
  • and peaked at number 3 → and peaked at three
  • On February 15, → On February 15, 2010
  • Wikilink MTV and Entertainment Weekly in the reception section
  • placed "Telephone" at number 3 → placed "Telephone" at number three
  • NME placed it at number 17 → NME placed it at 17
  • only performance of "Telephone" → only performance of the song
  • On March 3, 2010, she performed "Telephone" → On March 3, 2010, she performed it
  • In the credits and personnel section, don't wikilink famous cities/countries per MOS:OL
  • I think you should wikilink all the magazines in the footnotes
  • Ref 7: just Yahoo! Music is fine
  • Refs 111, 138, 149-157, 159-160, 176, 208-209, 214, 218, 225, 231-235, 246, 252-256: wikilink the publishers, don't consider if it's a template
  • Refs 155-156, 159-160: wikilink Amazon and the correct way is publisher=Amazon
  • Ref 183: does it have an archive-link?

This is my quick review. The article looks great and despite copyvio score is at 44.1%, it's because of the blockquote. GagaNutellatalk 21:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GagaNutella: thank you for your review. All done except for the credits in prose form (it was suggested by Aoba and I'd like to wait for his comments before I consider removing it) and the changes suggesting the removal of "number" (e.g. "and number 1 on the → and one on the") as I think it is needed. FrB.TG (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it gets repetitive, that's why I suggested to remove some of them. But no big deal. I support this FAC. Another excellent article, congrats! GagaNutellatalk 15:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid

[edit]

Support - I saved this page on my phone to give it a thorough read when I have more free time. This article is unsurprisingly excellent. Good job, FrB.TG. Shahid • Talk2me 13:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing from source review by ErnestKrause (see below)

[edit]

I'm not sure if this article has received a source review; ping me if a Source review is still needed for this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ErnestKrause, it needs a source review. :) FrB.TG (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm planning now to address the nearly 250 citations by grouping them into groups of twenty each and then randomly selecting one citation from each group to test the consistency of the citations. It should take about a day or two. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also going to add 2-3 short comments. First that the Live performance section first paragraph could us a paragraph break; likely a good spot would be right after the McQueen tribute. After you consider a paragraph break, it would be nice to hear more about the acoustic Gaga version: Did the song alter any lyrics to connote McQueen, like Elton John did with Candle in the Wind; there was a significant pause after the first few verses of singing at the 2010 Brits and was this pause in the lyrics directed at the memory of McQueen; The 2010 Brits awards version in on Youtube and maybe a 30-second video sample might be nice to see in this article of the acoustic version? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a paragraph break after the McQueen tribute but having removed some superfluous info, it's a little shorter. As for your questions, I didn't see any change of lyrics in her performance. And the "pause" interpretation wasn't covered by any reliable source so I'm afraid we cannot note that. As for a video sample, I'm not comfortable adding a third non-free media file unless there is a very solid justification. FrB.TG (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting source review per comments above:

  • Footnotes 2 and 3 are paired; footer 3 does document the sentence it cites and I'm not sure that footer 2 does anything here. Also, the primary link for footer three is subscription blocked which should be noted.
  • Footnotes 23 and 24 are linked; footer 23 primary link seems to be to Alejandro, not to Telephone, and its back-up link is to the TLS and no related Gaga material. Footer 24 does confirm the negative Beyonce comment being made in the article.
  • Footnote 50 does point to Telephone as on the top 10 list.
  • Footnote 68 does link the Rolling Stone article summary. The Rolling Stone article does point more directly to some of the more extreme LGBT symbolism used in the video, which the current Wikipedia article does not do; is this worth exploring, as in making the Wikipedia article more on point for the edgy qualities of the video production.
  • Footnote 86 from Haddow I'm finding more ambiguous rather than a full criticism of Gaga. He seems to find ups and downs in the production.
I would definitely say the following is a criticism more than anything: "Telephone is thoroughly mediocre. Every second of its sprawling nine and a half minutes is a patent reproduction of superior work, and its tired attempts at controversy fall flat for anyone old enough to remember Madonna or Marilyn Manson." At the same time, the critic acknowledges Gaga's influence through some clever marketing but the video's quality is criticized.
  • Footnote 119 does document the song with Dancer as a top 15 video performance.
  • Footnote 132 does document the Chromatica tour but not the mention of the Joanna world tour.
It's not supposed to mention Joanne Tour anyway. That's what ref. 131 is for.
  • Footnote 148 does document Beyonce as one both tracks of this UK single release.
  • Footnote 168 for CIS links the song at TopHit offering 3 tabs for Global, Ukraine, and Russia. The table given on the right does not change at all when the 3 tabs are clicked and alternated; its just the same data for all three. Does not seem all that promising for providing verifiable data.
  • Footnote 199 does verify as Billboard reported Telephone as a dance hit at the top of the list.
  • Footnote 209 does not verify Telephone on its Canadian list but seems to list "Bad Romance" instead.
  • Footnote 224 does verify Telephone at number 90 of 200 listed hits.
  • Footnote 246 does verify Telephone as Gold/Platinum on their list.

That's the trial for the random selection as described above with thirteen samples for the 255 footnotes in the current version of the article. As I read the report I've just typed in above, then footnotes #209, #168, #23, #24, #2 appear to raise issues. I'm still giving you credit for the ambiguous one I mentioned and not counting it as raising issues. That means 5 out of 13 not returning results as expected for source check verification. That actually is normally considered as too high of a missed citation rate to not cause issues with the FAC coordinators. I'll need some comment from you before continuing since at present for the random sample as I've listed them here, then the issues problems are too high for a direct pass at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, none of these issues are related to source-to-text integrity. They are merely issues with links, but if you are still not convinced, I can go through all the sources once again.
Ref. 2: It partly supports the claim and is supposed to be double verification (but ref. 3 fully does); I don't see an issue here.
Ref. 23: there must have been a bug with the archive tool. I have corrected the link.
Ref. 24: I'm not sure what the issue is here. It criticizes Beyoncé's part as in the article ("Beyonce falls victim to some particularly wack lyrics here. Does it really feel like she's 'living in Grand Central Station?'")
Ref. 168: Corrected link
Ref. 209: It actually does confirm Telephone at number 15. Bad Romance is placed at number 3. FrB.TG (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics from a random sample of 2 failed links out of 13 tested needing correction will require the go through for all sources. I'll then have to repeat the random sample test for the selection of a similarly chosen new random sample for verification. The current statistics are inferring that about 38-41 links may be in need of attention for the full list of citations. Let me know when you are ready. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: I have gone through the sources again now and fixed some irregularities here and there. FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need a day or two to prepare a second random sample for this; I'll try to get it in by Monday or Tuesday. Possibly do a second pass on this since another repeat of 2 out of 13 missed link citations might not be very good. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding FN 168 (now 171) not showing chart data, it turns out that the original link was also correct after all. You just need to scroll to the peak date of the chart. FrB.TG (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second source review following same guidelines

  • Footnote 11 does state its a 'good pop dance' song. No link to direct article at MTV, only their home page. The archive and the main article are also reversed in order of access from the footnote.
  • Footnote 26 does verify the top 30 listing. Archive works.
  • Footnote 56 does verify the quote. Archive works.
  • Footnote 65 does verify the designer. Archive works (its only a partial lock and it does provide the preview you need here).
  • Footnote 99 links on the archive but not on the direct link. Link fail.
  • Footnote 110 links correctly to archive. Backup to original also works.
  • Footnote 130 Time magazine and archive seem to link correctly.
  • Footnote 158 You are linking Amazon UK for the remix. This is not an original source. I'm not sure your archive of the Amazon playlist is much better. This is the best source for this remix?
  • Footnote 171 Peak position at 3 verified.
  • Footnote 192 Peaks at 4 in Romania.
  • Footnote 207 "Adobe Flash player not supported" for your archive of the Australia list. Cannot link your archive.
  • Footnote 240 Datenbank in Germany requires cookies to be accepted. You can read in the highlighted sections in the background, however, that its certified gold.

This is not what I'm expecting to see for a pass and its closing in on a 'no pass' for me at this time. I'm able to recuse my myself at this time, since on the second test of a random sample there appear to be 3 bad tests out of twelve. My belief was that you would check each and every link after the fail of the first random sample, which I cannot verify for the second random set of samples. Possibly another editor can find a way to verify this since I'm now recused. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm really failing to see the issue here. The original MTV and PopMatters links don’t work and are accordingly marked as dead; given that it’s issue from the websites, it’s not something I can "fix" (well, I have fixed it by adding the back-up archive links), and it’s the reason why they redirect to their respective index pages. It is something that happens regularly with old articles but the archived links are there and working. All the three sources are verifiable. Thank you for your input; I will request another source reviewer to look at it. FrB.TG (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Okay, I see that the previous user has recused themselves. I'm gonna review the sources they have deemed problematic and then provide a spotcheck of my own. First, looking at the list by ErnestKrause and going one by one:

  • 11 - OK
  • 99 - the link is fine and it works well. That said, I can't see why the reference mentions "page" - I do not think it's needed (and it's not the correct page anyway, the page we see there is page 4). So either change it or remove completely (better remove, I see other such refs where page is not mentioned when it could have been).
Yeah, I suppose you are right about removing it altogether considering each page has a different URL.
  • 158 - OK
  • 207 - OK - works just fine and no flash player problems for me.
  • 240 - OK

I see no problem with these source, I can't recall that tehnical issues such as cookies and flash player support is a prerequisite, especially not for archives links. Now to my spotcheck:

  • 6 - OK, but should you not name it "Radio and Records"? (same goes for source 250+1, not a big deal, just wondering)
  • 31 - OK
  • 67 - OK
  • 74 - the title as I see it is: "The Top 100 Tracks of 2010" so please remove the rest.
  • 89 - Good, pages and content is correct, but please provide a link for the article. Here's the full PDF link provided by Google scholar.
  • 94-96 - I would recommend that you add links to the book and the individual chapters, especially because you do have a preview on Google books.
I have added a Google Books link to the book itself. I don't think linking the chapters is necessary since the user can just scroll up and down in the preview.
  • 97-98 - same, link exists.
  • 100 - OK.
  • 104 - please add the date - December 7, 2010 - it's there.
It says the article was updated that day though. Considering the URL was accessed on December 2 as per the |access-date= parameter, I would say it was definitely posted before December 7.
  • 111 - the title is "The Top Music Videos of 2010", remove the rest.
  • 121 - OK
  • 125 - OK
  • 150 - OK
  • 190 - 08.05. - 14.05.2010 - shouldn't it be used as a date? Or at least the year?
Well, that was the week the song charted in so I'm not sure that is the actual date it was posted. Plus, the source is generated by the {{single chart}}, which cannot be modified, unfortunately.
Shshshsh, thank you so much for taking a second look. I have done all of the above except where I have stated otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Passing source review. And you gave me even stronger reasoning for my support above, which was based on prose and now on your good work with sourcing the article as well. Shahid • Talk2me 22:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: May I open another nomination? FrB.TG (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 April 2023 [22].

1981 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the tournament where Steve Davis, who went on to dominate the sport in the 1980s, won his first world title. The losing finalist, Doug Mountjoy, set a championship record break of 145 in his semi-final match. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Henni147

[edit]

I gave my support in the first nomination round already, and I am happy to support this great article again. Henni147 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chris

[edit]
  • "There were a total of eight qualifying groups – each with" - think that dash should be a comma
  • "Despite not winning any major tournament since the 1978 World Snooker Championship, Ray Reardon was the bookmakers' favourite to win at that time" - maybe change the last three words to "at the time of the draw" for total clarity
  • "had become the bookmakers favourite to win, at 7–2" - missing apostrophe in bookmakers'
  • "but lost the match after being tied at 5–6, 6–6, and 8–8" - "tied at 5-6" doesn't seem to make sense to me........?
  • Reardon image caption needs a full stop
  • "Eight-times former world snooker champion" => "Eight-time former world snooker champion"
  • Thorburn and Davis captions also need full stops
  • "The two players had a total of 37 visits to the table on the blue" - I feel this language is ever so slightly obscure, maybe change to "The two players made a total of 37 attempts to pot the blue".....?
  • Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've made the amendments. On your last point, we don't know from sources whether all 37 visits were attempts to pot the ball (it's likely that most were safety shots}, so I've reworded as I'm not sure that the cue sports glossary entry for visit would solve the problem of obscurity. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
  • The formatting was a bit off, making it look like it was White rather than Meadowcroft who was exempted. However, checking old issues of Snooker Scene, Meadowcroft was due to play Barrie, who withdrew. I added a note about seedings in the Overview sections. Wych, Fagan and Pulman were 17th, 18th and 19th on the Snooker world rankings 1980/1981 and thus the highest-ranked players in qualifying, so the exemptions now make sense. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
Hadn't seen this one was at FAC (or the last time), I'll take a look. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • FN 1: I would format thestar.co.uk as The Star
  • I will AGF on the offline sources
  • FN 46b returns a configuration error.
  • Looks like none of the those online sources are live now. I removed the configuration error one, and added an offline source. (It may still look a bit like citation overkill, but multiple sources are needed as none of these on their own confirm all of the results, seedings, and nationalities.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HurricaneHiggins

[edit]

I'd take some issue with this sentence in the lead: "The tournament was the 1981 edition of the annual World Snooker Championship, a World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association-sanctioned event which was first held in 1927." It suggests that world championships were held annually since 1927 and sanctioned by the WPBSA since 1927, neither of which is the case.

I amended the text in the lead and body. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the lead: "Thorburn lost by 10 frames to 16 in the 1981 semi-finals to Steve Davis." I'd remove the atypical way of reporting the score, and there's surely no need to say that he lost in the 1981 semi-finals when we already know this is an article about the 1981 event. "Thorburn lost 10–16 to Steve Davis in the semi-finals" is sufficient here, in my view.

Amended in the article, but in a way to keep the cuegloss link to frames. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, en-dashes (–) are used throughout the article in place of em-dashes (—). En-dashes are typically used for complex compound adjectives (such as post–World War II) or to indicate the range between two numbers or dates. Otherwise, in regular prose, we should use em-dashes.HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended some - are em-dashes also needed for odds (e.g. 3–1) and/or frame scores (e.g. 18–12)? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, HurricaneHiggins. I've replied above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @BennyOnTheLoose. We should use en-dashes for scores, odds, dates, etc. Generally, if it goes between two numbers, it's an en-dash. But em-dashes are commonly used in prose—to set off parenthetical remarks like this—so thanks for changing that.
Happy to support the article's promotion now. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2023 [23].

1867 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the more important Senate elections in 19th century Pennsylvania, not so much the election itself, but the maneuvering to gain the Republican endorsement, which was tantamount to election then. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
I've copied it now straight from the infobox template example.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Smn_Cameron-SecofWar.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, and when and where was this first published?
I've changed the PD rationale.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still tagged as lacking author info? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I've explicitly stated that the author is unknown. This doesn't seem to affect the copyright status, the LOC views it as no known restrictions. Is this satisfactory?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Will review in a day or two. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should the Civil War be mentioned at some point in the background, especially given Cameron's post as Secretary of War and Curtin's position as an influential wartime governor?
  • Was Curtin term-limited in 1866?
  • I wouldn't call the stuff in Note [a] to be common knowledge, so recommend citing it directly
  • Spot-checked the refs to Stewart 1972 and didn't see any issues

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 04:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those things are done. Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

Good article. No comments here, although I made a couple of very minor MOS tweaks. - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

All fixed, thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, how's this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've completed the responses from the source review. Whenever the comments from those who have left placeholders come in, I plan on dealing with them promptly and that should be that I hope. Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One item pending on image review. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on it there, hopefully it is satisfactory. Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]
Eddie891, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I've totally forgotten. I'll have a read through after PCN02 to avoid commenting on the same things Eddie891 Talk Work 19:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 I just wrapped up my review, feel free to give the article a look now. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have a read-through. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Federal law prescribed that the senatorial election was to take place beginning on the second Tuesday after the two houses of the legislature which would be in office when the senatorial term expired" Is quite a mouthful and I think a bit hard to follow. Could it be broken up a bit or rephrased?
I'd ask you to read Z1720's comments on this in this prior FAC. I used identical text.
  • "He resigned after less than a year, during the Civil War, under pressure from Lincoln and Congress" I don't think it's particularly clear who 'he' is here
  • "After helping gain the election of James Pollock as governor" maybe "helping James Pollock gain election as governor" would flow better?
  • Maybe linke Favorite son?
  • "—Cameron had, thirty years previously, penned such a "spontaneous" letter on behalf of Andrew Jackson under similar circumstances" While interesting, is this really relevant to this article?
I guess it explains why Lincoln asked him and how Cameron got this chance to rehabilitate himself politically.
  • Suggest linking patronage
  • Our article puts "waving the bloody shirt" in quotes. Perhaps do here too?
  • Could you put how many seats total were in the legislature, for context?
  • U.S. speaker of the house Galusha Grow" Why would you not capitalize S and H here?
  • "but Cowan received a majority of the vote and his nomination was made unanimous" maybe mention before this that Cowan had become (?) a member of the Democratic party?
As far as I know, he never did. The Dems just chose him to receive their votes. They knew he wasn't going to win, and he was an ally of Johnson, whom they supported. I don't have a source that discusses their motivation
  • "There were accusations of corruption in Cameron's election" made by who?
Added. Allegations of corruption were made after each of Cameron's first three elections to the Senate, probably least justified in 1867.

I think that's pretty much it from me, minor things. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I've dealt with everything. If I haven't specifically responded, I've gone ahead and done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]
Hi PCN02WPS, per Eddie's comment above it seems that you're up next. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning soon, should have them up this afternoon. Sorry about the delay @Gog the Mild @Wehwalt PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries PCN02WPS, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Linking incumbent could be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the term
  • "different faction of the Republican Party, and had clashed as early as 1855" → I don't think the comma after "Party" is necessary

Background

  • "Federal law prescribed that the senatorial..." → I don't think this sentence needs the comma near its end, though then this gives "would be in office when the senatorial term expired convened and chose legislative officers" and "expired convened", an example of center embedding, isn't ideal; I'm not 100% sure how to avoid this though.
I'd say just keep it as is. This is more or less the same sentence as is at 1899 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, and was modified after comments in its FAC. I'd say the comma is needed for clarity. Remember, it's easy for readers to get lost in long stretches without commas, especially on unfamiliar subject matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, struck. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the following day at noon, the candidate would" → comma can be removed here
Rephrased.
  • "who had resigned to become United States Secretary of State" → since it's not directly qualifying a person, just naming the office, "secretary of state" can be lowercase
  • "After achieving the election ... he was given the post..." → this wording is a little confusing, are you saying that Curtin himself achieved the election, or his campaigns, or the party he supported?
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prevent Cameron from receiving a cabinet post" → readers unfamiliar with government might benefit from a link to Cabinet (government)
  • "filled in 1867, Edgar Cowan, also a lawyer, had also been a Whig orator" → a little hard to parse with the commas and repetition of "also", maybe tweak to "filled in 1867, the lawyer Edgar Cowan, had also been a Whig orator"?
  • "attorney, and later, as a prosecutor, and joined" → commas unnecessary here, can be simplified to "attorney and later as a prosecutor, and joined..."
Up to date. If I haven't specifically commented, I've gone ahead and done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

  • "which had fallen into disrepair with his absence from the state" → if you want to imply causation, replacing "with" with "due to" or "because of" would do better here
  • "Governor Curtin was known as "the soldier's friend", and received praise" → comma before "and" can be removed
  • "He also saw to it Pennsylvania sent" → could read better inserting word so that it reads "He also saw to it that Pennsylvania sent..."

1866 campaign

  • "Republicans in the 1866 campaign originated the style of campaigning" → minor, but "campaign" is a tad repetitive (emphasis mine)
  • "sometimes introducing the main speaker" → "and sometimes introduced..." to keep with past tense of the sentence
  • "several times in the campaign" → "during the campaign" sounds more natural to me
  • "unusual for legislators to bolt the party" → I have not heard this term before, does "bolt the party" mean "vote against one's own party"?


Maneuvering

  • "Other contenders, each of whom had only minimal, regional support were" → add comma after "support" to complete the appositive phrase

Final days and election

  • "L. Kauffman, a Stevens supporter" → is Kauffman important other than the fact that he was a supporter of Stevens? If not, this could be simplified to just read "A Stevens supporter wrote to the congressman..."
That's one approach, but then someone will put {{who}} tag is. Although not much seems to be known about Kauffman--I looked for a first name in vain--I'd say it's better to give the reader the information than deprive them of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the language about "comparable values" in MOS:NUMNOTES.
Fair point, I guess I hadn't read that far along in the sentence when I wrote that comment. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Control of the speakership, and its powers to assign members to committees" → comma can be removed

Aftermath

  • "Grant appointed Curtin as Minister to Russia in 1869" → lowercase "minister"; this also needs changing in paragraph 3 of "Background" since I missed that one first time around

See also

That's all for content, I'll come back for another readthrough and some source checks later tonight. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'm up to date. Again, if I haven't responded, I've done what you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good above. Most sources are offline but I have spotchecked what I can below.
  • FN 1: "In drafting the Constitution, the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 agreed that United States Senators would be chosen by state legislatures, not by the people." -- verified, though this extends backwards to page 509 as well (specifically with the mention of the year 1787)
  • FN 43: "Glass used his control of committee assignments to influence supporters of Stevens, Grow and other minor candidates." -- verified
  • FN 53: "Ambitious young politicians, such as Matthew Quay, drifted into the Cameron camp, with the alternative being political oblivion." -- verified
  • FN 55: quote and context -- verified.
  • FN 56: The last sentence of the paragraph is verified, but "Many rank-and-file Republicans..." through "...Colfax of Indiana" is not from what I can see.
As far as reference formatting goes, links could be added to FN 49 (Wilkes University) and the bibliography listings for Agagi, Furniss, Kelley '63, and Kelley '66 (all for Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography); Bradley (University of Pennsylvania Press), Bybee (Northwestern University Law Review), Kahan (University of Nebraska Press), Kehl (University of Pittsburgh Press), and Stewart (Pennsylvania History (journal)). The FN 1 page numbers and the content covered by FN 56, as well as the reference wikilinks are the only outstanding issues I have; the article is very well-written and comprehensive, and I learned quite a bit! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with the 1 and 56 matters, in both cases the material starts at the bottom of the previous page and I've modified the cites accordingly, and added an additional cite to deal with Schuyler Colfax. I've added those links. All done I think. Glad you enjoyed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2023 [24].

Ernest Roberts (Australian politician)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Roberts was an up-and-coming South Australian state and federal politician who died young. Not my first soldier/politician, I brought Bill Denny and Arthur Blackburn up to FA a few years back, but some extra non-military eyes would be really helpful, especially anyone with experience of reviewing politician bios. Roberts served twice in the Second Boer War with colonial and then Commonwealth mounted troops. I haven't done many bios of soldiers from that war, and I think the recent GAN by Hog Farm and A-Class review by a few Milhist types have improved the article markedly. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment on nationality field in infobox

[edit]

I'm unsure what the convention is for using this field on this infobox, but "English-Australian" seems rather strange to put on here? If it's supposed to represent national status, then "British" or "British subject" would be more appropriate. If nationality means ethnicity in this context, then wouldn't just filling in "English" make more sense? Horserice (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Not sure when that got there, but have adjusted it to British-Australian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

I reviewed this article (and provided a source review) at A class and assert that it is of Featured Article quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Steelkamp

[edit]

I'll review this article seeing as I have experience in writing Australian politician articles. Steelkamp (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " as an independent Labor Party candidate". I would replace that with "as an independent Labor candidate". Isn't the whole point of describing oneself as an independent Labor candidate to say that you aren't part of a party but subscribe to the same ideology? That's why I would leave out "party" and not link the party as well.
Excellent point. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a case where "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description" applies? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Pretty sure if it were "Premier of South Australia Charles Kingston" it would be ok, and if it were "The premier of South Australia, Charles Kingston", it would be ok. But due to MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues, the second one is preferable. Steelkamp (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no worries. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Steelkamp:, forgot to ping you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And on that note, is it possible to mention lower house somewhere?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be mentioned that the Kingston government governed with the support of the ULP, seeing as Kingston wasn't actually part of the party.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The election brought the Price-Peake Government to power, a minority government under the ULP premier, Thomas Price, working in a coalition government with the Liberal independents led by Archibald Peake." That's a lot of mentions of "government" I would remove the third one and just have it as "...working in a coalition with the Liberal independents..."
Sure, good idea. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, decapped. And moved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and his explanation met with loud cheers from the crowd." Should that instead be "and his explanation was met with loud cheers from the crowd."
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boer Commando has an uppercase "C" but this article uses a lowercase "c".
I suspect the article is incorrectly capitalised, as Boer Commando is not a proper noun. Although this area is perhaps a gray one, per MOS:MILTERMS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with the inconsistency between "de Wet" and "De Wet"?
At the beginning of sentences, De Wet, within sentences, de Wet. Fixed the instance of De Wet within a sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the incumbent member for the federal division of Adelaide and former premier, Charles Kingston, died on 11 May 1908, a by-election was called. Roberts won the 13 June by-election as the Australian Labour (Labor from 1912) Party candidate against the independent Anti-Socialist Party candidate Alexander McLachlan, receiving 51.2 per cent of the votes." Does the source there specify the date that Kingston died? Does the source there mention the Labor name change?
No, but I've added sources and citations for both. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roberts retained his seat in the 1910 Australian federal election". This could be shortened to "Roberts retained his seat in the 1910 federal election". Same with "1913 Australian federal election".
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Sorry for taking so long. Please ping me when you have completed this. Steelkamp (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Steelkamp, thanks so much for your review. See what you think of my responses? I'm quite unsure about the capitalisation of Premier, but happy to decap if I've got it wrong. Let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi PM, a lot of life in 45 years. I only have a few comments and suggestions...

lede

  • He was re-elected in the state election of 3 November 1906. - why include "the" in wlink here but not in the 1905 immediately preceding?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a by-election was called on 13 June 1908 - called for 13 June to avoid ambiguity?
tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He successfully contested his seat - defended?
went with retained. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The loss of Roberts ... was keenly felt by - "keenly" is an unfortunate word in this circumstance? It can also mean enthusiastically. Perhaps swap to intensely felt or similar?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early political career

  • trade union-run weekly magazine - swap hyphen to a MOS:SUFFIXDASH ie trade union–run
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier and journalist

  • The convoy was regularly sniped at, but the troops, supported by the guns - what sort of guns? maybe link artillery above?
linked artillery, but neither Wilcox or Murray tell us what sort of guns they were. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most certainly. Must be a typo in Murray. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later political career

  • Roberts was a member of royal commissions in 1906 and 1908, inquiring into the affairs of produce merchants and into wheat-marketing practices in the state respectively. - these are state RCs? Would better link be List of South Australian royal commissions#State of South Australia? His name appears (unlinked) in 1907 merchants but not the wheat RC. He also appears in the 1897 Bundaleer waterworks RC
I'm not sure what you mean. Thornton says he was involved in both the RCs listed in the article. I've looked in Trove and found a reference to the Bundaleer water scheme, and added it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you mean, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He successfully contested his seat at - defended / held?
went with "retained". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minutes after speaking in a fiery - new para or even Death and memorial/legacy or similar new section?
Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't in Adelaide, it was at Parliament House in Melbourne. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm! JennyOz (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It consisted of a broken column - still does? ie consists?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistencies etc

  • 4th Imperial Bushmen's Contingent - is linked in infobox but not elsewhere?
linked in the lead and body at first mention. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • per cent of the vote v per cent of the votes
now consistent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wagons of De Wet's rearguard" v "continued to pursue de Wet into" - mid-sentence caps consistency?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Murray, P.L. - add space between initials
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

  • add Category:Burials at West Terrace Cemetery
  • add Category:19th-century Australian politicians - (was in SA HoA 1896)
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM, very interesting to read this. My relative was also with the 4th Contingent and sailed on the Manhattan. He was KIA in May 1901 and was later honoured by Rowell.

I may have one more comment but have to re-read the sentence tomorrow to check I'm not confused. JennyOz (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, can I just check on the state of your confusion (if any!) now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, you can be assured I am always confused! Every time I edit anywhere, I realise how much I still don't know about this place. JennyOz (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Jenny, thanks so much for your review. All done, I think. I can always rely on you to spot the military jargon and fix my typos and errant grammar! You are a gem! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PM, Thanks, this is all marvellous, especially your ability to decipher my queries!
  • I've gone back to see what I was confused about. It's in here....
"he quickly became well-known for his advocacy of the early closing of factories – to reduce working hours, and improved working conditions for sailors."
"early closing of factories" on first reading sounded like closing them down but the bit after the dash clarifies earlier closing times. So that's okay.
But, "to reduce working hours, and improved working conditions for sailors" - if "improved working conditions" is a second advocacy, does it need another snd after "hours,"? (Or change first snd to a comma). If it's part of the earlier times advocacy, (ie shorter working days improve working conditions) then the tense for improved should change to improve? Maybe introduce "for" before "improved"?
Sorry, I can't explain my confusion any better than that!

It is such a minor thing (and maybe just me) I am happy to add my s'port. Thanks for telling his story PM. JennyOz (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I have endeavoured to clarify it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for tweaking that. Magic! JennyOz (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Sources are high quality.
  • Formatting is consistent.
    fn 35. City?
    fn 38. Link Geoff Manning
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: 3, 33, 37, 44 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass

[edit]

That's all. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Harrias, thanks very much for taking a look. Alt text added throughout, and the AWM link fixed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, all good. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: looks GTG now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the watchlist, PM -- feel free to kick off another if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PM, I'm about ready to promote this but I have a concern with the last sentence of the lead, specifically in recognition of his brilliant political career and its untimely end. Some would consider untimely end peacockish but TBH I can live with it, my main concern is the brilliant political career being in WP's voice. I can see two ways round it, take out brilliant entirely, or quote/cite the relevant bit of the inscription that you provide more fully in the final section, i.e. "brilliant career" (this would also give you the opportunity to quote "untimely end", rendering moot any suggestions of peacock phrasing). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Ian Rose, quoted and attributed it to The Advertiser. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, tks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2023 [25].

Battle of the Trebia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on a battle from the Second Punic War. Yes, I am getting a bit fixated on these; I will probably get bored soon and do something different. Meanwhile, here is Hannibal's first pitched battle against the Romans. A mid-winter battle against an over-confident Roman general turned out about how you might expect. I took the article through GAN in 2020 and have been doing bits and pieces to it since. In particular Harrias has just completed a beautiful set of maps illustrating how the fighting went. Hopefully it is up to FAC-standard, but in respect of any areas where it is not, please let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:2018_05_11_Rivalta_Trebbia,_mémorial_bataille_de_la_Trebbia.jpg is missing a tag for the original work
Removed.
  • File:Map_of_Rome_and_Carthage_at_the_start_of_the_Second_Punic_War_Modified.svg: see MOS:COLOUR
  • File:Mommsen_p265_(cropped).jpg is missing a US tag and author date of death for the photo
Swapped.
  • File:Balearic_Slinger.jpg: what is the basis for the accuracy of this illustration?
That's a really good question, and one I feared I wouldn't be able to answer to a HQ standard. But I got lucky and found it in the third source I checked. Added.

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • "...which encouraged it to resist future Roman demands" Would "enabled" be more appropriate here, or is that not accurate? I just find the usage of the word "encouraged" strange here.
While I am not wedded to it, "encouraged" seems to me to capture the nuance fairly precisely. "enabled": well, one is always able to resist, it is really a question of how sensible or realistic that is.
  • "Hannibal left his brother Hasdrubal Barca in charge of Carthaginian interests in Iberia" Was Hasdrubal Barca given any title/position at this time?
Not that we know of.
  • Not sure if it is just me, but the following sentence reads weirdly: "The Carthaginians needed to obtain supplies of food, as they had exhausted theirs during their journey, and obtain allies among the north-Italian Gallic tribes from which they could recruit, in order to build up their army to a size which would enable it to effectively take on the Romans"
Not sure I get it, but I have recast as 'The Carthaginians needed to obtain supplies of food, as they had exhausted theirs during their journey. They also wanted to obtain allies among the north-Italian Gallic tribes from which they could recruit, in order to build up their army to a size which would enable it to effectively take on the Romans.' Is that better?
Yes.
  • Is " valley of the Po" Po Valley? If so, I would link.
It is. Done. Ta.
  • "Hannibal is reported to have stressed to his troops that they had to win..." Do we know according to whom?
We do. But in Wikipedia it is usual to put accepted facts in Wikipedia's voice and cite them, rather than attribute everything in line. Where there are differences of opinion, especially when there is no consensus at all, one might name the modern sources in line. (Quotations have a different rule again.)
It is deliberate. The MoS says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers ...". Rather than expect readers to recall the first passing mention early in the article, or to labour the point in line, it seemed one of those rare occasions to invoke "generally". Happy to debate other approaches and/or changing it.
  • File:Sacred Band cavalryman.png does not have alt text.
How odd. I thought I had cut and pasted it. Done. Thank you. Well spotted.
  • Neither does File:Relieve de Osuna (M.A.N. Madrid) 03.jpg.
It also has px not "upright". I have had a bad day there. Thank you again. Sorted.

More comments to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rome's other consul, Sempronius Longus, was meanwhile assembling an army in western Sicily, with which it was planned to invade Africa the following year.[25] Shocked by Hannibal's arrival and Scipio's setback, the Senate ordered this army to move north to assist Scipio." Sounds like by this time, the army had been in the making for quite some time, which makes me wonder if the first sentence should read: "Rome's other consul, Sempronius Longus, had been meanwhile assembling an army in western Sicily..."
Quite right. Tweaked.
  • "...Hannibal came to believe some of the Gauls in the immediate area were communicating with the Romans" Why did he think that?
We don't really know. Using Goldsworthy purely as an example "Hannibal became suspicious .. Perhaps the Gauls were genuinely duplicitous ... [perhaps] different leaders had approached each side."
  • "when the new consuls took up their positions" As this phrase refers to a future event, I would suggest "when the new consuls would take up their positions"
Good point. Done.
  • "...especially among the troops of the Carthaginian general Hannibal" Since Hannibal has been mentioned numerous times before in this article, I would delete "the Carthaginian general".
Very tactful. Done.
Again. D'oh!
  • "In addition there were an unknown number of elephants – the survivors of the 37 with which he had left Iberia" This has previously been mentioned above in the Carthage invades Italy section. I would pick one location to have this information.
Ho hum. I take your point, but also feel it needs mentioning in both places. I mean, I mention the number of infantry and cavalry in both and you haven't objected. Let me think on't.
Ok. I have tweaked both, to avoid the obvious repetition. See what you think.
  • "The Romans were met by the Carthaginian light infantry; behind them the entire Carthaginian army forming up for battle" The grammar in the second phrase sounds off to me; maybe add "was" before "forming", or replaced "forming" with "formed".
You are correct, it is. Fixed.
  • "Richard Miles says that "many" not in this group were killed;[93] although Nigel Bagnall writes that this was only a minority of the Roman cavalry.[94]" Why the "although"? These ideas do not seem to contrast to me.
They do to me, but the although is entirely optional and so pouf!

A wonderful (and surprisingly comma-filled, I might add) effort.

Thank you. Logically that would suggest that either I am using more commas, or ...

Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A prompt and helpful review. Thank you. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, Gog. I'll support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cplakidas

[edit]

Goodie, another Punic Wars battle! Reserving a spot here for the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • As the reader may not know whose side the Numidians were on, and this was a deliberate stratagem, perhaps 'Hannibal used his Numidian cavalry to lure the Romans out of their camp and onto ground of his choosing'?
Good point. Done.
  • Perhaps it should be mentioned that both armies were about evenly matched in numbers, and what these were (ca. 40,000, and that the Romans had more infantry and the Carthaginians cavalry)? The Carthaginians are mentioned to have grown to 60,000 after the battle, but no numbers are provided for the battle itself.
Done.
  • Devil's advocate mode: why is the opinion of Toni Ñaco del Hoyo important enough to be singled out in the lede? If this is the common view, then I think it can be stated as such without attribution.
Ho hum. Trapped by MOS:QUOTE. I have tweaked it.
Background
  • ruled by the Barcids 'ruled by his family, the Barcids'?
Done.
  • Hamilcar ruled as viceroy 'Hamilcar ruled Iberia as viceroy'
Looks like repetition of the previous paragraph to me, but done.
  • It was the long-standing Roman procedure to elect two men each year, known as consuls, to each lead an army this gives the impression that the consuls were purely military leaders. Perhaps 'It was the long-standing Roman procedure for the two supreme magistrates, the consuls, to each lead an army in times of war.' or similar? This would also remove the need to explain it again later on.
Sorry. I am not sure how that slipped and gor overlooked. you are quite right. Corrected.
  • the survivors of the 37 war elephants do we have numbers here? From memory it was a handful that survived.
Grr. That took my nine sources to get a number. Finally found one in a book on Cannae! "thirty or so". Added.
My memory was not that good, it seems, but thanks for chasing this down.
  • Could the founding of Placentia and Cremona be mentioned as an example in the 'War in Cisalpine Gaul' section above? This would obviate the need for a footnote.
Oops. Missed one. Done.
  • Devil's advocate mode: why is a depiction from 1891 relevant or even accurate, given that the state of knowledge about arms and armament back then was vastly inferior to today?
There is a severe dearth of appropriate PD images. And it is accurate enough; its originator seems to be drawing on the same accounts in Polybius that a modern illustrator would.
Fair enough. To my eye it also looks fairly correct, but I had to ask.
  • imagined victory 'anticipated victory'?
Why? I don't have a real issue, but the current wording seems to capture the nuance better.
Opposing forces
  • Introduce and link Polybius and Livy
Apologies. I forgot that I removed the "Primary sources" section. Done.
  • There's a mixture of 'close order infantry/cavalry' and 'close-order infantry/cavalry'. I think the latter is correct?
It is. Fixed.
  • The citizen militia is mentioned, but it is emphasized that these did not go on overseas campaigns. If a citizen phalanx did not fight at Trebia, I would remove mention of it.
I have removed details of their weapons etc, but I think it reasonable to explain why virtually no Carthaginian citizens were in the Carthaginian army, unlike the Roman situation.
Sorry, I did not mean remove them entirely. I agree they should be mentioned, but yes, the details about them were unnecessary and possibly confusing since they might be construed as contradicting their absence in the battle. Perhaps also remove and the citizen-militia both as well?
Whoopsie. Thank you.
  • There are some duplinks: velites and Publius Cornelius Scipio
Velites fixed. Scipio is deliberate. The MoS says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers ...". Rather than expect readers to recall the first passing mention early in the article, or to labour the point in line, it seemed one of those rare occasions to invoke "generally". Happy to debate other approaches and/or changing it.
No worries, I agree with your reasoning, and for these things I tend to give the author considerable latitude. MOS should not be a straitjacket.
  • [[Iberians|Iberia]] is a bit easter-eggy... I expect to see the territory, not its people. It is also unnecessary, since 'Iberians' is mentioned soon after.
Fixed.
Battle
  • Mago (a Carthaginian general and one of Hannibal's younger brothers) is this necessary? That he was a commander is obvious, and the parentheses can be omitted by something like 'his younger brother Mago' or similar.
Tweaked.
  • Nigel Bagnall writes that this was only a minority of the Roman cavalry what does 'this' refer to?
I had to look it up! Clarified to "Nigel Bagnall writes that only a minority of the Roman cavalry survived."
Subsequent campaigns
  • crossed the Apennines better spell out what the Appenines are, i.e. 'crossed the Apennine Mountains'
Done.
Other
Not without further information. To my inexpert eye the sword and mail look fair enough. Although only a minority of legionaries wore mail. The helmet looks very dodgy to me. And no Republican close-order infantryman ever carried a shield remotely like that. Could it be a gladiatorial outfit?
Fair enough, I am also quite uncertain about it and don't have my books around to check right now.

That's it. A fine article as usual, clearly written and quite comprehensive even for a lay reader. Constantine ✍ 11:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Constantine. It seems a long time since I last had one of your rigorous but full of common sense reviews. You should do more, FAC would be the beneficiary. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always a pleasure reviewing your articles, Gog the Mild. Thanks for the swift reply, there's only a couple of minor issues left. I am trying to become more active in reviewing lately, so I hope you'll see me more often :D Constantine ✍ 19:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good :-) . All sorted now I think Constantine. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Supporting now. Constantine ✍ 16:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
Footnotes are from special:permanentlink/1148294029. Not really doing spotchecks.
  • Footnote 45: Roman heads are mentioned; I assume the 2200 Gauls are in footnote 3 (here we just have "some Gauls").
Yes. "2000 infantry and nearly 200 cavalry".
  • Footnote 107: seems to be on p. 46 at least in this version (archive.org); is yours paginated differently than this other 1967 edition? It also doesn't explicitly say that Flaminius was supposed to protect the area where he was.
It is a long trip to the library to check that, and it was, probably, when it went through GAN in 2020 that I added that, so memory is a bit hazy. So I have deleted that bit and added a snippet on the devastations cited to a source I do have to hand.
  • Footnote 113: Ñaco del Hoyo is on pp. 376-392 of the book, not at the pages you say, see [26] (TWL) But page number and content check out.
Good spot. Corrected. I gave the range for Mineo. I have no idea why. Premature senility?
  • Great scholarly sources, nicely formatted. A few minor issues though, see below.
  • Erdkamp has a different hyphenation for the ISBN than other articles from the same book. Don't know which one is correct.
How odd. Usually the hyphenator sorts these out for me, but it seems to have bobbled. Fixed.
  • Hoyos, Dexter (2015b): There is no 2015a (you might be referring to a book edited by Hoyos, but you just cite the chapters by other authors).
Ah. I think a cite to Hoyos himself in A Companion dropped out along the way and I overlooked tweaking 2015b. Now done.
  • Rawlings 1996 and Sabin 1996: the 67 is either an "issue" or a "volume", not both.
Oops. Fixed.
  • You sometimes cite the Companion to the Punic Wars as Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell and sometimes as Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. This is the same book, so it would be preferable to unify these.
One is the hardback, t'other is both the paperback and the on line versions. Ok, let me confirm that they are otherwise identical. Done and standardised.
  • Koon 2015: it should be the 'Face' with single quotation marks (inside the double quotation marks).
That's not how it is in the source I'm looking at.
Sure, but the citation template uses double quotation marks around the chapter title, and MOS:" tells us to alternate double and single quotation marks.
Done.
  • A general remark: I would prefer to have additional links/identifiers for the book chapters, for example a DOI, to make it easier for the reader to notice that fulltext is available online, either via paywall or via The Wikipedia Library. But of course that isn't necessary for FAC, it would just be more convenient. Your "one identifier only" keeps the citations as short as possible, which looks prettier.
I like pretty. But a bot will come along in a bit and add DOIs.

Think that's all! —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great stuff Kusma. Many thanks for picking it up and wading through my sloppiness. (I am now off to sort out other articles which may contain similar slips.) All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an easy pass now. Very nice work, and the sloppiness was rather minor. —Kusma (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • ...these two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC... Is the reference to the century necessary?
I think it helpful to give readers an idea of the period during which they were the two main powers, otherwise they may not unreasonably conclude that this only applied during 264 to 241 BC.
I wanted to link at first mention of the whole Barcid expansion, rather than just that under Hamilcar. But changed.
  • Is the link to Manpower/Human resources useful in the article's context? (The linked article is mainly dedicated to the task of the HR Department in a modern company.)
One should link to targets which should be useful, they may be expanded later. But, on reflection, you are correct. Removed.
  • Was Hamilcar a viceroy? If yes, who was the Carthagian monarch on whose behalf he ruled?
Ha. Good spot. No, he wasn't of course. (Although one source uses "viceregally".) Tweaked.
  • Why are Saguntum's, Clastidium's and Arretium's modern names not mentioned and linked in brackets? (Compare with Piacentia and Massalia.)
Done.
Colonia - done; socii - already linked at first mention where "allies" refers to Latin allies.
  • ... in New Carthage... Perhaps "in the Iberian city of New Carthage/at New Carthage in Iberia"?
Good point. Done.
  • Why not "Allobroges Gauls"? (Compare with "Cenomani Gauls" in subsection "Formations".)
Good point. I think I got carried away with "Cenomani", and so tweaked to a more summary style.
  • ...besieged their capital, (near the site of modern Turin) Perhaps, "besieged their capital, (near the site of modern Turin),"?
Yep! Done.
  • Hearing that Publius Scipio was operating in the region, he assumed the Roman army in Massalia... Who is he? (Hannibal is named in the previous paragraph.)
Oops. Named.
  • ...with many cavalry dismounting to fight on foot... Do we know why? Roman or Carthagian cavalry or both?
Both. And when I wrote Ticinus I came up with this, possibly explanatory, footnote.[a]
  • For me, the footnote would be useful.
Added.
  • Formal battles were usually preceded by the two armies camping two to twelve kilometres (1–8 miles) apart for days or weeks... Is this statement true independently of place and time (in the past)?
Tweaked.
  • During wartime each of the two men elected each year as senior magistrates, known as consuls, would each lead an army. Repetition (already mentioned and linked in section "War in Cisalpine Gaul".)
Second mention removed.
  • Why "its allies" instead of "allies"?
For flow and personal preference.
  • The combined force which Sempronius led into battle included four Roman legions. Repetition. (That each consul led four legions is mentioned in the previous sentence.)
I don't feel that "The combined force which Sempronius led into battle included four Roman legions" is a repetition of "each consul was leading a larger army of four legions, two Roman and two provided by its allies".
  • Numidians are first mentioned in section "First contact" (not in section "Carthagian").
Tweaked.
  • Link light cavalry in the first paragraph of section "Carthagian" (not in the second paragraph).
Done.
  • ...veteran infantry... For me, the adjective refers to a retired soldier. (Compare with the definition of "military veteran" in the second sentence of article veteran.)
Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source. The normal sense is "A person with long experience of a particular activity" (from Wiiktionary) or "a person who has had a lot of experience of a particular activity" (Cambridge). Cambridge offers as its second definition "someone who has been in the armed forces during a war".
  • ... half of the surviving elephants... We are not informed that elephants had died.
Corrected.
  • Delink war elephants in section "Carthagian".
Done.
  • He was so eager to give battle that few, if any, of them had eaten breakfast. Who is he and who are they (who had not eaten breakfast)? (In a previous sentence, the Carthagians' breakfast is mentioned.)
Which I had thought had made the situation clear. Now even clearer.
  • ...slingers from the Balearics... Is it necessary to repeat (for the third time) that the slingers were from the Balearics?
Excluding the picture caption, I make it the first. "Slingers were frequently recruited from the Balearic Islands" does not logically imply that these slingers were.
  • Why Adrian Goldsworthy instead of Goldsworthy in subsection "Casualties" (as he is already mentioned in previous sections multiple times)?
Trimmed.
  • Why is "quinqueremes" not italicised?
Because several dictionaries, including Wiktionary and Chambers, list it as an English word.
  • Delink Ariminum in section "Aftermath".
Done.
  • Why is "Etruria" not defined as "(modern Tuscany)"? (Compare with Cisalpine Gaul in section "War in Cisalpine Gaul".)
Because the two correspond poorly and I feel that it would be more misleading than helpful to equate them.
  • I think the association of Cisalpine Gaul with northern Italy may be even more misleading (Cisalpine Gaul did not include modern Friuli and Liguria).
Good point. I don't know why I included "modern", I haven't in other similar article. Replaced with "in" in the lead. The main text now reads "the area of north Italy either side of the River Po known as Cisalpine Gaul" with no parentheses.

Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely stuff. Thank you for dropping by and picking up all of that Borsoka. All addressed above I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are two pending minor issues but they cannot prevent me from supporting the promotion of this nicely written, interesting article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Borsoka, that is generous of you. Your two outstanding points both addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ The stirrup had not been invented at the time, and Archer Jones believes its absence meant cavalrymen had a "feeble seat" and were liable to come off their horses if a sword swing missed its target. Sabin states that cavalry dismounted to gain a more solid base to fight from than a horse without stirrups. Goldsworthy argues that the cavalry saddles of the time "provide[d] an admirably firm seat" and that dismounting was an appropriate response to an extended cavalry versus cavalry melee. He does not suggest why this habit ceased once stirrups were introduced. Nigel Bagnall doubts that the cavalrymen dismounted at all, and suggests that the accounts of them doing so reflect the additional men carried by the Gallic cavalry dismounting and that the velites joining the fight gave the impression of a largely dismounted combat.

Request for the coordinators

[edit]
Carson a bha thu a’ smaoineachadh sin? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind Gog's origin, I suspect his salutation was just trying to curry favour with the Aussie and the American on the panel... ;-) So okay, he's succeeded with the former -- Gog, falbh air a shon! (Or something like that...) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gum beannaicheadh ​​Dia thu, a dhuine uasail. Am faca tu an dealbh air an duilleag chleachdaiche agam? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome, and yes -- magnificent! (The mountains are impressive too...) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could've sworn this little rascal once admitted to being British! He just loves playing tricks, doesn't he? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

From a first canter through for spelling etc:

  • "the size and make up of the opposing army" – the OED and Chambers both give "make-up" a hyphen when used as a noun, as here.
Changed.
  • "javelinmen" (twice) – the OED and Chambers both hyphenate "javelin-man", and so presumably the plural should also be hyphenated.
Hyphenated in all five instances.
Touché! So much for my eagle-eyed reviewing, missing more than I spotted! Tim riley talk 11:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More anon when I have read the article for content etc. Tim riley talk 10:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of my comments

After a leisurely perusal I have precious little to quibble about in this excellent article. My meagre gleanings:

  • Lead
  • "Publius Scipio personally led the cavalry ... He was soundly beaten and personally wounded" – two personallys in close proximity. (And can one be impersonally wounded?)
Indeed. Rephrased.
  • Pre-war
  • "He was succeeded by his son-in-law, Hasdrubal, then his son Hannibal in 221 BC" – two points here. It is unclear if the date applies only to Hannibal or if there were two successions in one year. Secondly, "then" didn't oughter be pressed into service as a conjunction in formal English: "and then" would be better, I think.
Both fixed. (I think.)
I think so too. Tim riley talk 13:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • First contact
  • "A large melee ensued" – the OED throws accents at the noun – mêlée – and so, slightly to my surprise, does Chambers.
Goodness me. Both changed.
  • Prelude
  • "Scipio was still partially incapacitated" – not sure what "partially" has got that the shorter "partly" hasn't, apart from three extra letters.
Three random letters removed.
  • "to share the glory of an imagined victory" – if I correctly take your meaning here I think perhaps "conjectural" might be clearer than "imagined".
I had "anticipated", but Constantine above preferred "imagined". I am going back to "anticipated", but would be happy to discuss further with both of you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sponsored by Pedants R Us Pedants R We: "anticipate" should not be used as a mere synonym of "expect", and the OED defines it as To consider, envisage, guess at (an issue, argument, demand, or likely course of events) in advance, esp. in order to prepare an appropriate response, and I think your use of it here complies with that definition. Better than my suggested "conjectural" in my view. Tim riley talk 13:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hannibal was also ready for a set piece battle" – the OED hyphenates "set-piece" when used adjectivally.
And so it should. Done.
  • Roman
  • "The near-contemporary historian Polybius ... the Roman historian Livy" – if you're going to tell us that Livy was Roman, perhaps you might also say that Polybius was Greek, but I'm not sure we need their nationalities, really,
Ah, there is at least one regular reviewer with strong feelings on that. "Greek" added.
  • Early stages
  • "and secret themselves in an old watercourse" – the OED describes "secret" as obsolete when used as a verb; since the 18th century the verb has been "secrete".
Dragged kicking and screaming ... Done.
  • Notes
  • "These elephants ... should not be confused with the larger African bush elephant." – speaking for myself, I should be unlikely to confuse anything with an African bush elephant, but be that as it may, is there a touch of WP:EDIT about the wording? A less admonitory wording such as "as distinct from" might be preferable. Just a thought.
A good one. Tweaked.

– Tim riley talk 11:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful stuff Mr riley. My thanks. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A good read, well illustrated, appears balanced and suitably sourced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. And now I see the other Co-ords have let Gog run amuck with another bloody battle in the Punic War. I'll look in there after a brief lie-down to get my strength back. Tim riley talk 13:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One can't get too much Punic. As someone must have said at some time. My fellow co-ords believe it keeps me out of (worse) trouble. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

          One simply can't get too much Punic,
          Whether writing in English or Runic,
             Or so Gog asserts,
             But he'll get his deserts
          When I shove the whole lot up his tunic.

Tim riley talk 14:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I think you've missed your calling...! One little thing: as Prince Faisal tells T.E. in Lawrence of Arabia, "I think you are another of these desert-loving English..." -- how else to explain the "s" missing from the fourth line... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you're challenged by young Ian Rose,
You're allowed, in my view, to suppose
That he knows how to spell,
And we know very well
He is one of our very best pro's.

Tim riley talk 19:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, there's an art to simultaneously praising and putting one in one's place. Having only ever heard the expression and never seen it written before, I should've checked the dictionary before opening my big mouth -- we live and learn! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2023 [27].

Diodorus scytobrachion

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a silesaurid, a member of a group of strange dinosaur-relatives, which may actually be dinosaurs themselves according to the latest research. This particular genus isn't known by much, so the article covers everything that has been published about it, and gives a bit of a wider look at its group for context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the artist, Fanboyphilosopher. FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now cited the source I consulted when creating the diagram. As for color, I am of the opinion that color-coding a skull diagram is much more useful for the purpose of visually presenting information on the size, shape, and relationships between individual bones. A black-and-white diagram would not be as immediately impactful for that purpose. For the sake of color-blind readers, I've investigated my coloration style in a color blindness simulator ([28]). Most colors can still be discriminated in dichromatic views, and even when there are exceptions the diagram is still useful thanks to the context afforded by the legend (top-to-bottom and left-to-right in the columns correspond to front-to-back in the skull). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The legend doesn't say that, so if a reader is unable to distinguish colours how would they understand that context? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I will add that information to the description. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And another diagram has also been added:[30] FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not, precisely, a review, but I checked for Lint errors and duplinks, and found none. That said, the map & cladogram (I assume meant to be side-by-side?) in the Classification section are instead a map with massive whitespace on the left, followed by a cladogram with massive whitespace on the right. Could another arrangement be found, that doesn't leave so much whitespace? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, doesn't look like that to me, must be different settings. Could you show a screenshot? FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed by SilverTiger shrinking the map. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

As a lifelong dinosaur fan, I'll take a look at this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 13:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't feel cheated if it turns out not to have been a dinosaur after all! FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still holding out hope for Diodorus. Hog Farm Talk 02:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Diodorus Skeletal.svg - is it feasible to provide a key for the color-coding of the remains noted in the diagram?
Yep, added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " from Argentina were recognized until the 21st century, when their taxonomic diversity, and geographic and stratigraphic range expanded." - not sure what the best way to fix this is, but the current phrasing could be read as implying that the dinosauramorphs were expanding their geographic range in the 21st century
Tried with: "were recognized until the 21st century, when their larger taxonomic diversity, and geographic and stratigraphic range was realized". FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not strictly relevant to this article, but I found myself trying to figure out if the Meckelian groove begins in the front and goes to the back, or vice versa
Hmmm, I'm not sure it's defined that way, as it's pretty subjective to claim what end it "starts". But you can see it here:[31] Usually, you'd probably say it begins at the front, as skulls are mostly described from front to back, but still pretty subjective I think. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources all appear to be reliable
  • Some heavy reliance on Kammerer in places, but I don't think it's avoidable for this topic matter
Yeah, no other sources have dealt with this genus in depth. Probably due to its scrappiness. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did a few spot checks, but not many, because I'm pretty tuckered out in RL. Not seeing any significant issues here, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all the above should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • Late Carnian – make sure that substages are always non-capitalised (i.e., "late Carnian") since they are informal.
I see, done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While these elements were not associated with each other – maybe add "found" to make the meaning clearer?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • stance – "posture" is the more accurate term, as "stance" typically means something else (the limb in support phase).
Done, though the source said "stance". FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The metatarsal is elongated – Add "only known" to make clear that there were more than one metatarsal?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significantly, a widespread group – Do we need "significantly", I am not sure what it adds. I expect that all information provided here are significant.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • omnivory – needs a link
Done, also linked carnivorous, though a more well-known term. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In their 2012 phylogenetic analysis, Kammerer and colleagues both coded the Diodorus holotype alone and the holotype and the assigned specimens together, with the results of both analyses being identical, which indicates the inclusion or exclusion of the assigned material does not alter the classification of this taxon significantly. – Not sure about this sentence. First, it is a very ling and complicated sentence that might be difficult to understand without a background in phylogenetics. Second, it does not fully make sense to me, because "which indicates" implies some generalisation but I think this can only valid for this particular analysis. Maybe just keep it short and simple and write they "obtained identical results when all known material or just the holotype was included". I don't think this looses any information.
Done, though I added the name "when all known Diodorus material". FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the Meckelian groove extends to the front of the dentary through its beak-like tip – Does this refer to Sacisaurus or silesaurids in general?
Sacisaurus, added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While fossilized footprints had earlier indicated the presence of dinosauromorphs in the Timezgadiouine Formation – Worth to cite the paper describing these tracks?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • but along with Silesaurus itself, to be the only unambiguous members of Silesauridae. – Needs a comma after "but" for the intended meaning?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I like the amount of backgound information given in the "Classification" section, even if much of it is not precisley about this taxon but about Silesauridae in general. Since this is the first well-made article on the group, this is necessary. In the future, if Silesauridae might be a featured article, this part could be shortened, but for now, providing this extensive background is important.
Nice to know! FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, addressed all the above. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "The genus name honors the legendary king Diodorus" No wikilink for this person? If he was a king, would he be able to pass WP:NPOL?
Probably, but Diodorus goes to the other person of that name who is already linked, so I don't know what it should be disambiguated as. But tried with Diodorus (king) for now... FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the paleontologists Rafał Piechowski and Jerzy Dzik" is the latter Jerzy Dzik? If so, wikilink.
Good find, linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spot-checked the lede and all information is in the article.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed, I can support. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "the legendary king Diodorus". Suggest "legendary" → 'mythological'.
I'm a bit unsure, because it is followed by the word "mythographer" which is a bit samey, and reads a bit silly to me together. Also, the source says "legendary", and the two are not necessarily the same. On a related note, funny that your latest FAC that I reviewed also involved a Syphax, so I wonder where the line between mythological and legendary (which could be real people) lies? FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. "My" Syphax is a real historical figure, I assume named in honour of the god. My understanding is that "legendary" relates to either real people - Hannibal or some of his feats may be referred to as legendary - or to those who may be real, or at least composites - eg King Arthur or Robin Hood. Mythological refers to people or things who/which didn't and/or couldn't have existed - eg Sufax and his offspring.
Changed to mythological, I guess here it's not someone who ever existed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link clade in the lead.
Already linked in first sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "while some later studies" → 'while some more recent studies', both lead and main article.
Hmmm, I have an aversion to using the word "recent" in any articles. It is relative to now, while "later" is relative to whatever is mentioned. But if this article stands in 30 years, will those studies really be "more recent" in any meaningful way? They will still be "later" in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's your call, but I really don't get it. In 30 years they'll be "more recent" in just the same way that they'll be "later", but for 30 years readers won't have had to stop and think about just what is being conveyed.
Thinking about it a bit more, my other problem with it is that it makes it seem as if the consensus changed, when it is just additional possibilities, not "replacements" of the original theory. "More recent" can seem like it's a qualitative description, when it really shouldn't be. I was thinking it could say "subsequent" instead, but that's just a fancy way of saying "later"... Or maybe it's better at making it less time-based, so I tried with subsequent. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assigned to Silesaurus contains beetles and shows". 'contain', no "s".
Ah, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if the lead contained an age in years as to when these lived.
Ugh, not sure how I missed that, added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Meckelian groove is distinct from that of other silesaurids in that it expands in height towards the back, and reaches 40% of the dentary's height by the fourth tooth position. The dentary is distinct in being bowed at the underside." "... is distinct ... is distinct ..." Optional, but perhaps rephrase one?
Shook up a bit in both places. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only known metatarsal is elongated and as in Silesaurus and has a robust rim for attachment of extensor muscles." A surplus "and"?
Sure, snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered so far, with some follow up questions. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A widespread group was first recognized upon the discovery of Silesaurus from Poland, similar features to which were later identified in new and previously discovered taxa from the Americas and Africa." This seems a little clunky to me. Possibly the one sentence is trying to do too much?
Tried to rephrase it like this: "A previously unknown group was first recognized upon the discovery of Silesaurus from Poland, and features similar to this animal were later identified in new and previously discovered taxa from the Americas and Africa." Still long, but possibly clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to lacking some important features". Maybe 'due to their lacking some important features'?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the late Anisian stage of the early Middle Triassic". Do we have any idea as to how long ago this was?
Added approximate number. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the former as sister taxon". 'with the former as a sister taxon'?
Yeah, why not. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which supports that this group had a cosmopolitan distribution". Is it just me, or does that read a bit as shorthand? Ie, would 'which supports the theory that' or 'which supports the hypothesis that' or some other expansion be a little clearer?
Added "the idea". FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "temporally long-ranged". 'temporally widespread' or 'temporally widely distributed'? (Long-ranged means something different.)
The source says " long-ranging", so changed to that, since widespread and widely distributed seems a bit more physically spatial. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They suggested that basal dinosauromorphs were widespread, temporally long-ranged, and common rather than rare and restricted in time and space in Triassic fossil assemblages, and that this pattern had only been recently recognized due to specimens being misidentified as true dinosaurs and the rather low potential of these small-bodied, delicate animals being preserved." A long sentence, with a lot happening in it; and so many "and"s that I am honestly unsure what some of it is trying to say.
Tried to split in two here, if that makes it better: "Triassic fossil assemblages. They speculated that this pattern". FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also found Diodorus and Sacisaurus to be sister taxa". I don't think "also" is needed here. As well as what?
Also as in earlier studies, but probably not needed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consisting of basal ornithischians instead of a sister group to all of Dinosauria." Maybe 'being a sister group' for clarity?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "used the name Prionodontia for the clade only including traditional ornithischians to the exclusion of "silesaurs"." Is it me, or does this need tweaking?
Changed to: "for the clade that only includes traditional ornithischians to the exclusion of "silesaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It also made new interpretations for the origin in time and geographic distribution". Should "for" be 'of'?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 2014, Diodorus was one". "By" or 'In'?
Here I say by, because it is likely there will be many more discovered down the line, so this way it doesn't have to be updated. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other fossil animals known from the t5 assemble". Suggest "t5" → 'this'.
Done. Also fixed "assemble" to "assemblage", oops. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely stuff. Lovely writing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered the rest. Some hard ones! FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)

[edit]

Looking at Special:Permalink/1148581250.

  • Footnote 2 does not have complete bibliographical information. What is the website you cite, and why is it reliable? (You probably want to link Thomas R. Holtz Jr. to convince me of the reliability). Is this from a book?
It is an online appendix of this[32] book, which lists additional animals described since the book was published. I've used this citation style for it in other FACs, but if there are better ways of citing it I'll gladly implement it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to at least archive it, fix the access-date (the file says it is from 2012-01-13, so an access date of 2012-01-12 looks weird) and to add the website and author link. Even better (in my personal opinion) would be to note that this belongs to a published book in a way. I suggest the following (needs filling out, and please feel free to ignore the book part if you disagree):
I am happy with this from the "reliable sources" point of view. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion looks good, added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 8: does not look like a "journal" to me (no pages/issues)
I'm not sure how exactly to classify it, the parent page says "This online Reference Collection forms the definitive source for those entering, researching or teaching in any of the many disciplines making up this interdisciplinary area of study. This resource is designed to serve as an in depth and comprehensive compendium of Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences."[33] That said, it appears to be reliable, connected to a journal publisher, and with well-known authorship. I tried the cite website template instead, though I think the journal template might be a better fit. All it is used for is a date in million of years. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, when I expanded the citations automatically afterwards, it changed the template to "cite book" and added an ISBN, so I guess that's what I'll go with. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a book formatted online like a journal, changed to book template and added book-specific parameters. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out ref 6 was from the same book, so changed too. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 has non-abbreviated middle names, 15 has a mixture. 14 does not give a middle name although the doi leads to a page that has information. Would be even prettier to unify these.
Abbreviated all (most of these are auto-generated through the DOIs). FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
19 still had un-abbreviated names. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed two more citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 Dias-da-Silva with an uppercase S
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 Do we know the first names of Jalil? There should be no space in N.-E.
Seems to be Nour-Eddine Jalil, added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All sources used (except possibly no. 2) look fine to my non-expert eye. Will do a few spotchecks next. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1h checks out
  • 2 checks out
  • 3a/4a: seems fine, but 4 uses "folidont" not "foliodont", check spelling
"Foliodont" gets many more hits on Google and Google scholar, so I believe "folidont" is either a typo or uncommon spelling. Pinging Jens Lallensack for professional input on this. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After looking it up, "folidont" seems to be the correct spelling. It also gets more hits in Google scholar when using quotation marks to search for the exact word ("foliodont" only gets two hits). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, changed to folidont then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 seems fine

The level of paraphrasing is acceptable (avoiding the specialised terminology would lead to inaccuracies, so some similarities are visible). Overall mostly minor formatting queries as detailed above plus one query about spelling. —Kusma (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, only suggestions for 2 and 19 are left now, see above. (Not venturing an opinion on the foli(o)dont). —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rest should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine now. I was about to complain that 22 is lacking an issue number but it seems that Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology stopped having "issues". So pass. —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2023 [34].

Portland Spy Ring

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Portland spy ring was one of the controversies in the Macmillan government at the start of the 1960s. It was one of a series of spy scandals that rocked the British establishment throughout the decade (it was uncovered between the scandals of Burgess/Maclean and George Blake), and a coup for the Soviets, providing their submarine fleet with details of British technological advances that they copied. Any constructive criticism welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks fine to me. A couple of quibbles to prove that I read it:
    • Bell (2007) is not used.
    • Could you eliminate the two-letter abbreviations for American states? ([Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations]])
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Hawkeye. Both your points addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not immediately evident which Portland is being talked about here, since the lede never mentions which country it is in. (I think it needs to be explicitly mentioned because there are two prominent Portlands across the pond)—indopug (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments

[edit]
Comments
  • "because of the nuclear-power from the reactor" - don't think that hyphen is needed
  • "he was given a Minox" => "he was given a Minox camera"?
  • "were giving the US the information they obliged to under their NATO commitments" => "were giving the US the information they were obliged to under their NATO commitments"
  • "set in a wooden bowel" - a wooden bowel? Unless there's an obscure alternate meaning of that word of which I am unaware, I don't think this is right
  • "a battery with a removable top, containing $6,000 and the radio transmitter concealed beneath the kitchen floor" => "a battery with a removable top, containing $6,000, and the radio transmitter concealed beneath the kitchen floor". Also, could you clarify which $ this sum is in? US dollars seems a bit random, although I guess it could be correct.
  • "Lonsdale was removed from Winston Green prison" - the correct spelling is Winson Green
  • "the Portland Spy Ring and its aftermath has been described" => "the Portland Spy Ring and its aftermath have been described"
  • "$6,000 in 1960 equates the equivalent to" => "$6,000 in 1960 equates to"
  • Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

[edit]
  • Under the Cohens, second para, I'd suggest inserting a (some?) date there. This is because atm the reader has to click away to find out when the Verona project started in 1943. There's then a gap of 13 years in which they don't do any thing? I guess if they don't do anything related to the PSR, that's fair enough, but a date to anchor the leaving UIS, etc, would be useful. SN54129 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Polish spy Michael Goleniewski about a spy in the Admiralty" - seems a shame to repeat spy like that; "a leak in the admiralty" or something?
  • " MI5 surveillance " - to clarify who the beggars are for the first time, introduce them as domestic intelligence or something.
  • "In the early 1950s" - it rather sounds as though it would read better at the beginning of the para rather than the end: i.e. what they experimented on in the 50s resulted in the Dreadnought and its radar in the 60s.
  • Congratulations are certainly due to Molody on his being recruited by an organisation that would not come into existence for another 14 years... the KGB  ;) (ditto 1st chief directorate)
  • Any idea how much the Renault cost? Somewhere between the £20 on booze and %150 on the radio, but its relative worth would be interesting to know.
  • Might be worth adding in "to Katrina" ("Before his marriage broke up"), as she hasn't been mentioned for a while. Or perhaps "Katrina, thinking it could".
  • A seventy five meter tall mast in Ruislip?! And no-one noticed! Any idea how they pulled that one off?
  • The radio under the kitchen floor, is this the same radio that was under the cellar floor earlier?
  • Compare the sentence, "he was an illegal—a member of a foreign government working in London under an operational cover" with that of the Molody section: "an illegal agent—a spy working undercover in a foreign territory with no diplomatic immunity". They're extremely similarly phrased, but also, illegal links to two different places in both?
  • "deciphering them using copies of the one-time pads from the bank" - H'mmm, well of course, one-time pads were just that-use once. Was he receiving monthly replacemts? (I guess, but!)
  • "In the bag Gee had been carrying" - In McGee's bag?
  • Any idea why Houghton "didn't dare" tell the full story in court? One might have thought it would have been to his advantage.
  • No conclusions 1-4?! Perhaps an explanatory note a lá "after making four points regarding..." whatever.
  • Nicely attended to  :) and a really interesting article. Almost disappointed in the mundanity of the arial though - I liked the idea of some sort of Eiffel Ruislip that no-one ever noticed. Russell T Davies, eat your heart out! Anyway, happy to support this fine article for promotion to featured status. SN54129 15:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Just a few things.
  • I might wiki link caravan, as the word's not the same meaning in AmEng.
  • "one-time pads and map references." Could this be better explained?
  • "He was honoured by the Russian government in 1990 by appearing on a stamp." Would you rather stick to "Soviet"?
  • " Wynne had been the subject of a show trial in May 1963" Probably "was" for "had been". Do we need to say "show trial" if we're saying in Wikipedia's voice that he was guilty? Also I imagine the Soviets conducted the trial as I see from Wynne's article he was held in the Lubyanka?
  • The source refers to it as a show trial too. I think the term can be applied even if the party is guilty - it's the propaganda value that makes it a show trial (Gary Powers was certainly guilty of spying and his trial is also widely described as such). I've added that it was held in Moscow - is that enough to cover the Soviet angle? - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt - I'm much obliged as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Hawkeye7 - pass

[edit]
  • All the references are nicely formatted.
  • Speller (2005) Page numbers? Also: use title case for book title
  • Siddique (2019) Access date?
  • Spot checks: 7, 21, 22, 77, 90, 93, 108 - all okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye7 - both points addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review... Copyedited as usual, let me know any concerns. The only outstanding query I have is re. It contained a type 2001 sonar, described by the naval historian Iain Ballantyne as "immensely powerful", because of the nuclear power from the reactor could "detect threats using active sonar at unprecedented ranges for both ships and submarines". -- not sure about the expression of the final clause, can I confirm we mean that the sub's nuclear reactor allowed the sonar to detect threats at unprecedented ranges? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, I think our wording here is likely the issue. The source says:

Another massive leap forward in terms of offensive war-fighting was the immensely powerful Type 2001 sonar the Soviets had been so keen to gain insight into via the Portland spies. With a limitless energy supply from the reactor, Dreadnought could detect threats using active sonar at unprecedented ranges for both ships and submarines.

What we says does reflect what the source says. I've made a very minor tweak (deleting the struck through part of your quoted section above), but if you have any ideas on how to improve further, I'd welcome them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more needed, removing that "of" does the trick entirely, tks Schro.
Given the above, and the earlier image and source reviews, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Apologies for finding new quibbles on top of those I came up with at PR. Nothing of any consequence – merely drafting points:

  • "Much of the development work for the HMS Dreadnought" – I think it's either "the Dreadnought" or "HMS Dreadnought" and not both together.
  • He was given the identity of the Canadian national Gordon Lonsdale – unless there was a real Canadian whom he was impersonating I think an indefinite rather than a definite article might be clearer, with a comma before "Gordon". (Not, one assumes, Gordon from the slipper baths.)
  • "the USSR were able to test their first nuclear device four years later" – is the USSR plural? I don't, for instance, think I'd write "the United States were"
    • (They certainly tried to be when the UN was set up and tried to get multiple seats for each of the republics, rather than the one given for the USSR. All of which doesn't get away from the fact that I've changed to the singular here)
  • "they moved to 45 Cranley Drive, Ruislip…. 190 Strand, London" – does giving the street numbers add anything useful?
  • "he was receiving no bonuses from the Russians, so he was short of cash" – I must have bored you before with my antediluvian insistence that "so" is not a conjunction in formal written English. "and so" is what you want, me judice.
  • "He would then contact Moscow … alerting them of what was being sent" – another unexpected plural for the USSR.
  • "GCHQ were alerted" – I don't boggle at the plural verb, but I think a few words in the text introducing GCHQ and explaining its role would be helpful. (I know there's a blue link, but …)
  • "copies of 4 confidential AUWE files" – usual to put numbers up to ten in words rather than digits.
    • True, but there is "310 photographs" a few words on and we're supposed to be consistent
  • "Two impages of a talcum powder tin: a phoeograph" – spelling.
  • "the attorney general, Reginald Manningham-Buller… the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker" – one of these days I am going to become seriously unhinged trying to cope with Wikipedia's policies on capitalising, or not capitalising, job titles. For the moment, while still comparatively sane, I merely point out that if the Attorney General is lower cased there is no obvious reason to capitalise the LCJ.
  • Later, after a glass or two of chianti: if I thought I could I could get away with it I'd capitalise everything in sight and to Hell with the MoS. Kindly don't tell anyone I said this. Tim riley talk 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan" … Hugh Gaitskell—the leader of the Labour Party and leader of the opposition – ditto. I think I need to go and lie down now with a copy of Fowler under my pillow.

That's my lot. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 20:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most done, just GCHQ to sort - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim, All now done, except the one on numbers. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to add my support here. The article is as far as I can see comprehensive and balanced, and well and widely referenced, a pleasure to read and surprisingly well illustrated for a piece covering the period in question. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 14:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2023 [35].

The Next Day

[edit]
Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... David Bowie's 25th and penultimate studio album The Next Day. After its unsuccessful first nomination, I opened a pretty [PR] and extensive prose copyedits to where I now believe its finally ready for the star. Hopefully second time's the charm. Re-pinging previous FAC and PR contributors Ceoil SchroCat Ian Rose ChrisTheDude Aoba47 David Fuchs – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Have been following closely - much improved and happy to see it back. My demands to follow in a few days grumble, grumble. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Would go with Brit Eng and so should be "by the English musician David Bowie"
  • ...was recorded in New York City at the Magic Shop and Human Worldwide Studios - too much detail for the lead
  • old and new is hackneyed phrasing, and would use the term session musicians here...some of whom he had worked with in the past
  • I changed received critical acclaim and was regarded - to "well received by critics as Bowie's best work in decades".
  • More later Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support, with more quibbles

"McNulty applied studio processing on the mixing board so it would "sound like a record on playback"" - not sure what this means. Link mixing board.
" themes of tyranny and violence" - They were heavily indicating fascism. Suggest "Evoking" rathet that "themes", which is a very vague jurnalistic term way too rampant on wiki). Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it reads very well, the extraneous stuff has been cut. I was happy with quality of sources at last FAC, it's a very interesting, gripping article, Support. Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil Thank you Ceoil. I'm happy we had a more positive and less troublesome collaboration after This Year's Model. Looking forward to more stuff in the future, and if you ever need help with any of your articles I'd be more than happy to assist :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Will be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It's much stronger than on its first visit to FAC and reads nicely now. Great to see the number of quotes reduced from first time round - and it reads much more smoothly because of it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I supported during the first FAC and I support the FAC again for promotion this time. I read through the article a few more times since it was posted, and I could not find anything further to comment on here. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • Source 6 says it was published on 12 Jan 2013 09.00 GMT, not 11 Jan.
  • Source 8, 9, 11, 64, 65 need to be marked as dead as the main links aren't working.
  • Italicize titles of albums/works per MOS:CONFORMTITLE (e.g. The Next Day in ref. 9 title).
  • The Independent should be linked in ref. 28, not ref. 34.
  • Rock's Backpages can be linked in ref. 36.
  • NY Times should be linked in ref. 68, not 96
  • Watch out for WP:QWQ in ref. 81 title.
  • Ref. 88 should have Grammy Awards as publisher, not grammy.com in website.
  • I would say "David Bowie The Next Day Review" is the actual title of ref. 98. What you have is more of a subtitle.
  • PopMatters can be linked in ref. 114 (and in the body).
  • Spot-checks: 6 (it says Bowie avoided PR campaign but there's no mention that Sony is Columbia Records' PR firm), 9 (it doesn't say had worked with Bowie on records from Let's Dance (1983) to Heathen.), 21 in part, 97b, 116, 120. FrB.TG (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey FrB.TG I've finally got around to these. I so far believe I've fixed all of them but I was wondering if you could help clarify "21 in part". Do you mean the words don't match the source, they match the source too well, or what exactly? Just so I have a better idea of what to look for. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I have no further issues. I did a couple of other spot-checks for the book sources and found no irregularities. FrB.TG (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian

[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, back again after the last FAC and PR to review and copyedit (fairly lightly although I did find some basic grammatical errors as well as repetition in places). Certainly an improvement in terms of the level of detail (clearly reduced) although I'm still not entirely happy with some of the expression, particularly in the song descriptions -- it's never easy to produce this stuff in an encyclopedic fashion rather than in pseudo-rock-journalese and still remain engaging. I don't think I can quite support on prose but neither will I oppose -- if I get a chance to revisit and can come up with any further improvements I will. Stout effort in any case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re song descriptions, and have made a start on this. The content is fine but needs to be more encyclopedic in areas. Ceoil (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have made some wordings. Ceoil (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys, I think it's improved. Not going to go through again and explicitly support but certainly not unhappy to see it promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The lead says that he had a heart attack in 2004, but the lead doesn't mention this at all and only refers to surgery for a blocked artery?
  • "McNulty set-up workstations" => "McNulty set up workstations"
  • "Bowie shares the songwriting credit with Jerry Lordan; the melody of the "ya ya yay a" line is taken directly from the Shadows' 1960 instrumental "Apache"" - I don't think it's clear here that Lordan getting the credit is because he wrote "Apache". Also, note that "Apache" was originally by Burt Weedon, so is it really accurate to call it "The Shadows' instrumental".....?
  • "Scott Walker,[46][47] who Bowie noted as an influence" => "Scott Walker,[46][47] whom Bowie noted as an influence"
  • "An accompanying video, directed by Bowie himself and costing $12.99 - what does this mean? The entire budget for the music video was $12.99?
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude Sorry I had a very busy weekend. Made adjustments based on your comments. Thanks for commenting. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

File:David Bowie (135687113).jpeg - claims Creative Commons 3.0, but not seeing anywhere on the 500px source page where a release under that license is indicated?
Licensing for the other images looks fine. Hog Farm Talk 00:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm Hmm. It says CC 3.0 under the detail page here but does that not apply? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine then. Passing the image review. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 April 2023 [36].

Li Rui (politician)

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Li Rui, a Chinese communist politician, historian, and dissident. Li was a CCP member from a young age and remained one until he died, but repeatedly annoyed China's leaders by calling for democracy, civil rights, and free elections. There is not a ton of information available on his personal life or background, but the article is as comprehensive as I could make it. The article underwent a GA nomination last January, conducted by Kavyansh.Singh. Looking forward to going through this process again, and thank you for reviewing this article! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • What is "Source Li Nanyang"?
  • For both images, when were they first published?

(t · c) buidhe 18:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Li Nanyang is Li Rui's daughter. She has provided a number of images of him to various media outlets, but most of them are still covered by copyright (there are some in the NYTimes obituary, for example). As to the age, the studio portrait is from 1945, while he was secretary to Chen Yun (although I don't know the specific date), while the cropped, lower-quality photo is from 1944. It appears to have been sourced from the book 李锐口述往事. which can be seen here p.98 (warning, large PDF) along with many other photos, most of which are probably copyrighted. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The date of first publication determines the copyright status, not the image's creation. Both images rely on PD-PRC which requires 50 years after publication; the unpublished criterion is unlikely to apply because the US tag requires that the image have been published before 1998. The book you mention seems to be published in 2017 if Worldcat is correct, so an earlier publication would be necessary. (t · c) buidhe 05:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean. I've removed both images from the article for now while I try and see if there is any free use image available of Li Rui. If that doesn't prove to be possible perhaps one or more could be reuploaded directly to Wiki under fair use criteria #10 (WP:NFCI). —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a fair use image (File:Li Rui studio portrait, 1947.png) and an image of the Three Gorges dam that is usable under CC-by-SA-3.0 (File:Dreischluchtendamm hauptwall 2006.jpg. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi buidhe, can I just check you're good with this image/licensing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes (see below) (t · c) buidhe 16:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks buidhe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as the start date of his term as Deputy Minister, don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • Fixed: I will track down the appropriate citations and add the details to the article - not done yet, though. This is now addressed.
  • Fn6: is what's being cited here the film itself, or the associated website?
  • Fixed: The website, but since it's a more vague source than Fn5 (Economist obituary), I've removed it and modified the sentence to suit.
  • FN7: date doesn't match source. Ditto FN17, check throughout
  • Fixed: Fixed FN7 and removed FN17 as we only have an archive link and it's adequately cited by another source.
  • Why are page numbers sometimes in the citation itself and sometimes in {{rp}}?
  • Fixed: I believe the templated ones are from the version before I started expanding the article. Removed them.
  • Be consistent in whether locations are included for books
  • Fixed: All books now have locations included, I believe.
  • Fixed these are now consistent.
  • Fn15 is missing publisher
  • Fixed: Added.
  • Don't mix templated and handwritten citations
  • Reply: I believe all citations are now templated.
  • FN18 returns an error
  • Fixed: Removed.
  • Fixed: It may not, I should have removed it when I began improving the article. Removed now.

Thank you for your comments and I will address the infobox citations when I have time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ganesha and Nikki, can I confirm all resolved here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good here from my perspective. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minor issue flagged above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed! :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is there anything I can do to attract more reviewers, or is it just tough luck if no one else wants to take a look? Recruiting reviewers on their talk pages is frowned upon, I assume. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really an issue, you just need to frame the request in a neutral manner, i.e. you're after comments, not support per se. Also try to go for people who you feel will give it a good going-over, say because they're good with prose, or knowledgable of the subject, or a FAC regular, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance—I have asked some folks and will see if any are willing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

[edit]

Further to the above, I've been asked, and will get this in the next couple of days, if I'm allotted that time by the @FAC coordinators: or the gods, whomsoever shall prove the greater. SN54129 14:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that isn't even a question, surely... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh  :)
  • "and dissident Chinese Communist Party (CCP) member" - I wonder if "Chinese Communist Party (CCP) member, and later dissident" wold be more accurate?
  • Comment: I actually considered that, but I felt that might imply that he left the CCP or was an external critic as opposed to an internal one. After he was permitted to rejoin in the '70s he remained a CCP member until his death.
  • "Mao, impressed by Li" - suggest "Li impressed Mao, who": tighter and less repetitive of Li.
  • Fixed: as recommended.
  • "However, Li's father died" - don't need the however.
  • Fixed: as recommended.
  • You might want to clarify the last sentences with some dates; as it is, it doesn't quite add up. 1934 is the only marker we have; but the 9 Dmr Mvmnt starts in 1935 and the 2nd s-J war two years later, so "then occupyng china" is a bit vague.
  • Adjusted: to hopefully be clearer.
  • Re. his trek, can you give an idea of the distance he faced? It wouldn't be OR.
  • Added: it was approximately 1000 km.
  • [His mum sounds cool!]
  • "became the editor of domestic commentary" - hmmm. Home affairs? Or is that the specific title?
  • Discussion: That's how Xinhua put it in their brief obituary (国内评论编辑), while the 'Economist' mentions him writing editorials (commentary). However it could be a specific Chinese newspapering term that Google is translating poorly, although my best understanding is that "domestic commentary" is a fair translation.
  • The quote from the NYT seems out of place here.
  • Comment: Some concern about this quote's context was previously expressed by another editor, so I'm moving it, but in general, its placement here was part of my preference to avoid "ghettoizing" all content about personality and style to 'Personal life', as I've seen happen in other articles. Frankly Li seems like he was a bit of a pain in the ass and I think these kinds of quotes help communicate that to the reader earlier rather than later.
  • Interesting that in 1944 he was considered a spy but the following year he received an important appointment. Why?
  • Discussion: As to that I have no specific information, except to say that the CCP (from its founding to the present day) is a place where people are constantly rising and falling, coming in and out of favor. Internal ideological and political struggles never stop. We have a pretty good article on the specific Yan'an Rectification Movement which led to his imprisonment, which is linked.
  • "his wife divorced and denounced him" - did she do this willingly or under political pressure?
  • Comment: There is no mention of specific political pressure in the sources used, but obviously the atmosphere in China at the time would have made standing by Li tricky at best and dangerous at worst.
  • "using iodine" - perhaps explain this was a form of, and link to, invisible ink.
  • Added: as recommended.
  • "In 2017 he failed to attend"
  • Modified: as recommended.
  • Your use of MOS:LQ seems slightly random! Consistency is important  :)
  • Checked: and made sure that any punctuation within quotes is from the sources themselves, while punctuation outside quotes is not in the original sources.
  • You're missing ISBNs from Sullivan 2011.
  • Added: to the cite.
Nice article, cheers! Now, over to Dudley Miles... SN54129 12:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and suggestions~ —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serial, I was wondering if you intended to formally support this nomination? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder; It's nice to do something positive at FAC rather than merely be tediously trolled. I'm happy to support this article for promotion, and if you want to restore the NYT quote at any time, Ganesha811, it wasn't a major issue. Cheers, SN54129 09:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]

I will have a look once Serial has finished. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, any comments or suggestions? —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an error message on ref 4
  • Comment: Assuming this is David Pong's Encyclopedia of Modern China, I'm not seeing any error message on any part of it (or when clicking through links), nor on 3 or 5. What is the message?
  • I believe I have now fixed this. Thanks for pointing it out.
  • Comment: Li Rui's father, Li Jifang, was a member of the Republic of China's first National Congress, in the House of Representatives, which met intermittently from 1913 to 1925. However, I cannot find a reliable source to verify this, unless we use Li Rui's own memoir, which I cannot translate except with Google. However, the information is widely available in sources like this, which seem inadequate. Pong states that Li Jifang "was a congressman in Republican China", but that's about as close as we get. It's also on zh.wiki.
  • Removed as recommended.
  • "As a student, he helped lead the December 9th Movement against Japan, which was in conflict with China at the time." For clarity, I suggest "As a student, in 1935 he helped lead [[December 9th Movement against Japan|a student protest against the failure of the Chinese government to oppose Japanese aggression]]."
  • Fixed: adopted your suggestion, which is a definite improvement.
  • "he warned that a large dam on the Yangtze would present considerable difficulties". This is vague. Are there no details of the ground of his opposition?
  • Fixed: added additional details from academic source.
  • "Mao hired Li as his personal secretary for industrial affairs". When?
  • Fixed: added.
  • "Li returned to Beijing, where his wife divorced and denounced him (see §Personal life).[3] One of his daughters, Li Nanyang (李南央), became estranged from him after reporting anti-Mao remarks he had made in private." I would move these comments to the personal life section. They are not significant politically.
  • Comment: I agree that they are not politically relevant, but I prefer them in this location because I think it gives a sense of his isolation and the depths of his exile. He had been on a fast rise and then experienced an equally precipitous fall. However, if you think they should be in the 'Personal life' section, I will move them. I'm also happy to eliminate the 'Personal life' section entirely and distribute its contents chronologically throughout the article.
  • Moved per recommendation.
  • "he was forced to resign from this role after being unwilling to "give special preference to the offspring of senior officials". "because he refused" would be more accurate than "after being unwilling".
  • Fixed: adopted your suggestion.
  • "writing five works on Mao's life and history in the party". "history in the party" sounds odd and I am not sure what it means.
  • Fixed: changed to "and experiences in the CCP".
  • Adjusted to clarify phrasing.
  • Comment: Agreed - Kusma also had this comment. I have difficulty assessing the reliability of Chinese-language sources, which are also harder to access and (for me) depend on Google Translate, which I do not like to use. In English-language scholarly work, his historical work is frequently used as a primary source on Mao, but his own life has attracted less attention. However he seemed to gain recognition in later years for being the "veteran liberal member", was always happy to grant interviews, and therefore got quite a bit of attention when he died, with a number of newspapers writing obituaries and covering his funeral as news. Thank you for your comments and suggestions thus far! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Also responding to a request on my talk page.

  • "Li was later described as "blunt, brash, and quick-witted" by the New York Times". This refers to his behaviour in the 1930s; he lived so long that I think it's worth making clear this is from his obituary. If the NYT had made the comment in, say, 1952, the reader would take it as part of an analysis of the communist scene in China.
  • Modified: Changed the sentence to make it clear the description came from his obituary.
  • "In 1945, Li was made the secretary to Gao Gang": can we say who Gao Gang was?
  • Added clause: I've added a clause to explain Gang's role at the time, and his article is linked.
  • Do we know where the "small school in the mountains" was?
  • Answer: I have not found specific reference to its location in any English-language sources, which has always bugged me. The Chinese article just says "the Great Northern Wilderness", which suggests Heilongjiang, but that may be referring to the camp near the Soviet border, not the school.
  • "However, after Mao's death in 1976": I don't think you need the "However"; the contrast is conveyed starkly enough without it. Plus you have another "However" later in the paragraph; I think that one is more justifiable, though I don't think it would hurt to lose it.
  • Fixed: removed the first 'however'.
  • "Li, whose opposition to the Three Gorges Dam had first brought him to prominence": if this is the case it's not clear earlier in the article -- we mention he became deputy head of the Ministry of Water Resources before mentioning his opposition to the dam, for example. Perhaps "prominence" refers to the rise in his profile when Mao hired him?
  • Comment: I did intend to mean Mao's plucking him into his inner circle. I've modified the phrasing to (hopefully) make this clearer.
  • 'wrote in a poem of its modern "arrogance, ignorance, shamelessness, lawlessness."' Do we know when the poem was written? We say "modern" but given his history it could have been written any time from the 1960s on.
  • Comment: The Economist obituary makes clear it was after his readmittal in the 1980s, but gives no further detail. That is the only reference which mentions this specific poem.
  • "The diary, along with Li's other papers, was the subject of a lawsuit in 2019": I think we should say what the suit was about.
  • Expanded: to add some further detail.

I do wonder if there are more sources in Chinese that could be used to expand this, but I'm not going to withhold support on that basis as I can't point to anything -- and perhaps the censorship in China has led to very little material about him being available. Looking on Google Scholar with search terms '"li rui" communist party political dissident' finds some results; anything there that you weren't already aware of? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks in good shape to me; the changes above are all fine. If you can think of a natural way to include the information from The Economist that the poem dates from no earlier than the 1980s I think that would be helpful. I'll AGF that if you do run across any new sources you'll include anything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support! I'll try to juggle the poetry sentence a bit to make it work; as to new sources, I have had some difficulty there before, since Li Rui is so often cited as a source on Mao Zedong, there are many books and articles which reference him, but rarely give anything more than the barest biographical details on him. However, I have found one source (The Three Gorges Dam and China's Energy Dilemma) which gives more detail into that area of his work. There's an interview with him from Dai Qing's book (Yangtze, Yangtze!) available here, but I'm not sure how much encyclopedic information on his life I can extract from that. An entry on Li in David Pong's Encyclopedia of Modern China also contains a few nuggets of new information. As it's a tertiary source, I don't wish to rely on it too heavily, but I will certainly incorporate what's new from these sources into the article when I have some time tomorrow. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added some information from each of these sources (except the interview) to the article, partially in response to Kusma's comments below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

[edit]

I'll look in more detail later, just one quick question: is Liberation the same as Jiefang Daily? —Kusma (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed: Yes, those are the same. I've reordered the section somewhat for clearer chronology.
  • Generally I'd suggest to add more names in Chinese characters for clarity and disambiguation. For example, the birth name 李厚生 should be somewhere. Characters would also help to identify Liberation/
  • Added: where I can be confident of Chinese names.
  • "His father had been a member of the Tongmenghui .. but died" Why "but"?
  • Fixed: Modified and split the sentence.
  • Do we know when he was jailed by the KMT government? And when he was mistakenly jailed as a spy? (Are you sure these events are chronologically at the right place?)
  • Comment: I am certain they are separate events - the Kuomingtang jailed him for handing out Communist books before 1937, although I don't think any source mentions a specific year or period of incarceration, while he was jailed 1943-44 for satirizing Communists in Yan'an during the rectification purge there.
  • zhwiki says he participated in the December 9th Movement, do you know about that? It would help explain his anti-Japan stance.
  • Added: Added with a tertiary source, which is the only one that specifically mentions the December 9th movement I've found.
  • Three Gorges Dam: could you give some conetxt and explain that it was eventually built, but much later?
  • Added: I've added some detail both in the 1950s part and the 1980s - let me know if you think it's sufficient. Feel free to tweak it yourself if you prefer.
  • Personal life: According to [37], he and Fan Yuanzhen married twice and divorced twice. I just saw that you mention the divorce in a different section; why not here?
  • Comment: Unfortunately I cannot access that source, even through the Wikipedia Library it looks like. Do you have full access? If you quote the relevant passage I can add it.
    Sorry for not responding earlier (travelling and not paying full attention to Wikipedia ATM). If you want, I can send you the PDF if you wikimail me. It is not super interesting though: all we have a footnote "Fan Yuanzhen (1921–2008) joined the CCP in 1937. She studied at Yan’an College of Marxism and Leninism in 1940. She was a researcher in the Central Political Research Office in 1941. She married Li Rui in 1939. In the course of later political ups and downs, they divorced, remarried, and divorced again." on p. 66, attached to her name in the text "In a letter to her husband Li Rui, Fan Yuanzhen wrote: “If the man I love turned against the Party some day, what would I do to overcome my feelings?” When Li was arrested by mistake in the Campaign to Save Delinquents (Qiangjiu shizuzhe yundong) in 1944, she wrote in her diary, “Political struggle is so horrible that no one can be trusted. Problems could arise anytime and anywhere, but I am determined. If the issue with my husband turns out to be for or against the revolution, I can take a firm stand.” Fan placed her loyalty to the Party above her love for her husband."
  • Sourcing seems very reliant on newspapers at first glance.
  • Comment: Li seems to have gotten fairly regular coverage in Hong Kong newspapers over the years, but most of those are Chinese, which I am loath to rely on since I have to use Google Translate. In English-language scholarly work, his historical work is frequently used as a primary source on Mao, but his own life has attracted less attention. However he seemed to gain recognition for being the "veteran liberal member" over the years, was always happy to grant interviews, and therefore got quite a bit of attention when he died, with a number of newspapers writing obituaries and covering his funeral as news.
  • Fu mu zuo ri shu is a 960 page book. Are you citing the letters or some of the editorial material? (There is a nice timeline at the end).
  • Comment: I was citing the timeline, as I recall, but unfortunately I no longer have access to it - a friend of mine who reads Chinese looked it up for me at her university library and translated some relevant parts for me, but she's not a Wikipedia editor and I usually don't bug her with translation requests, she just did me a favor!
  • The timeline is on pp. 887–888. We have (on p. 887) Li goes to Chongqing in order to marry Fan, 1939-11-22 (but I don't know when they get married), they go to Yan'an 1939-12-31. They get divorced in June 1944 and remarry in June 1945. Their oldest son is born in July 1946. On p. 888, they get formally divorced, 1961-11-30. (I can read Chinese when I have to). I will check other dates against the timeline and look for Chinese sources a bit. His biography [38] might be interesting to check out, but perhaps the many Radio Free Asia things cited on zhwiki are enough to fill this a little more. —Kusma (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did find a PDF of one of his memoirs online (warning, large PDF) which I discussed above, but again, I cannot read Chinese and do not like to trust Google's translations, which I know can be woefully inadequate. I will look at the Radio Free Asia sources, however. zhwiki also contains mention (which I have seen elsewhere) of an affair, and gives a source for which we only have an archive link (here). It's from Duowei News, and based on that article and a search at WP:RSN (where nothing useful shows up), I'm not sure how reliable we can regard it as. Do you have thoughts on Duowei News? Perhaps if we got access to Li Nanyang's book (我有这样一个母亲) directly. However even then she's a primary source, not a secondary one. I appreciate your help puzzling this out. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the first Ghits for the phrase 我有这样一个母亲 looks like the full text of the book, unfortunately not in a particularly citable form (no idea what edition/whether the pagination is correct). The memoirs are nice; p. 384 certainly confirms the "one son, two daughters" :) On p. 78 we have once more the claim that Li and Fan got married in December 1939. The affair while in Yan'an seems to be admitted also by the other person, Deng Liqun [39], but of course that doesn't mean we have to report it. I would expect the divorce and remarriage in the article, though. —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take a look through the sources again and see if I can find something citable to cover the divorce/remarriage - I agree it should be in the article if we can find a suitable, citable source. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the timeline in the book we already have is pretty decent. —Kusma (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, if I can't find an English-language source, I'll use that. I prefer English-language sources simply because I don't have to trust that Google is correct or bug my Chinese-reading friend to verify that. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded the article using the timeline in the book as discussed! No English-language sources that I could find with any level of reliability. Thank you for your help with this! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will read and comment more later. Interesting article about a very interesting person, but I am not yet convinced this is as comprehensive as it should be. —Kusma (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some things that need doing.

  • "another newspaper, Qingqidui (轻骑兵)" 兵 is "bing", not "dui". However, it seems the paper was called Qingqidui ("Light Cavalry"), written 轻骑队 (compare e.g. the interview here; there are also two of Li Rui's books on the Internet Archive and it is mentioned in at least one of them). According to that article, it was an "essay style large wall newspaper", see wall newspaper and also Big-character poster for background. Another person involved was Wang Ruowang.
  • Fixed adjusted Chinese, thank you.
  • "Li became a part of the Ministry of Water Resources" do humans become "parts"?
  • Adjusted to say 'joined'
  • Linked
  • The source doesn't say the iodine was used to make invisible ink; it sounds more like he was writing directly with iodine (which probably fades fairly quickly but isn't itself invisible; in fact, it is usually used to make invisible ink visible)
  • Adjusted - ah, you are correct. This change was suggested elsewhere in the review, but looking at the source again, what you say is right.
  • Switched the link.
  • What does "secretly but officially denounced as subversive" mean?
  • Comment: just that, really. The Economist writes: "Top of the list, he sought constitutional and democratic governance, with the party reframed as a socialist party in the west European style. That thought was so subversive, so unChinese, that in 2013 it was officially, though secretly, condemned."
  • In the list of works, it should be clarified that only the titles have been translated to English and you are citing the Chinese books.
  • Adjusted to make this clearer.
  • Do we know what Deng Xiaoping thought about Li Rui?
  • Comment: I have never found any reference to what Deng thought of Li specifically. A lot of people were rehabilitated after the Two Whatevers were done away with, and Li was one of them.

On the topic of overall comprehensiveness, I think you have more or less what is typically reported about Li Rui. It is reasonably easy to find more in Chinese from Li's own writings, but I haven't been able to find a lot of independent works about him. (Which may be because my Chinese is terrible). Not totally sure what the best thing to do is here. —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think there is an ideal version of this article that does include more detail, but it would have to be put together by a Chinese-speaking scholar who had good access to Chinese sources and excellent judgment about what Chinese sources are reliable and what are not. Since I lack those skills, I've mostly had to rely on English-language sources, which are necessarily less complete. Given that limitation, I feel good about where the article has ended up. However, it's up to you whether you think it's at FA standard, and either way, your comments have certainly helped improve it, so thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in an ideal world we should use the 1999 Chinese-language biography of Li Rui by Song Xiaomeng 宋晓梦 that I linked to above. In a less ideal world, we need to find whatever we can from other sources, but should try to exhaust what is available in English. One further thing I found: Li Rui was among the people who investigated the Cultural Revolution-era Guangxi Massacre in 1983. See e.g. pp. 201 and 225 of "Civil War in Guangxi", (TWL) (DOI). Maybe worth an extra sentence. —Kusma (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely, good find! Looks like a very recent publication from earlier this year. I've added a sentence accordingly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm running out of things to complain about. I have removed all italics from Chinese characters per MOS:NOITALIC. What are your thoughts about the free image File:Li Rui 2018 VOA.jpg? —Kusma (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it would add much to the article - nothing about his appearance in old age was exceptional, and I'd worry about adding an image of someone in hospital just because it's there, when it's not really relevant to their life (he was not known for being a medical patient). If people want to find out what he looked like as an old man, they can always Google him, there are plenty of available copyrighted images. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is what the existence of an undisputed free image means for your non-free use rationale for the main image. —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, you're right, that is problematic. Perhaps the best course is for the article to be unillustrated, though that would be a shame. Even if the only available option is the 2018 image, I still don't think it's worth adding to the article. There does appear to be File:李锐高中毕业照.jpg, which I missed before. It's used on the zh.wiki article but I'm not convinced it's actually public domain. Even if it was taken in 1934, it was probably not published until 李锐口述往事 was published, so 2013 (since that's listed as the source). —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I don't see proof that any of the "PD" files used on zhwiki (other than the VOA ones) actually are PD. —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I've been digging into fair use a little more. WP:NFCI #10, and some other material on fair use images, requires that no "free close substitute" can be found, and it also matters in law whether a possible substitute is of reasonable quality. In my judgment, a low-quality screenshot from a VOA video of Li Rui sick in a hospital in 2018 is not a close substitute for a 1947 studio portrait of him as a young man, nor is it of reasonable quality as an adequate replacement. For now, my instinct is to leave the 1947 image in the article, as I believe it is genuine fair use. However, if this is a dealbreaker, I'm willing to remove it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see both sides and am happy to defer to @Buidhe's judgment on this. —Kusma (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I would tend to agree that the 2018 image is not a close substitute for the earlier portrait. It's possible that a suitable free image might exist, however, NFCC does not require endless searching. If a suitable free image is ever located it can just be swapped in for the other image. (t · c) buidhe 16:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done with the text. Support on content, somewhat weakly since further Chinese sources could give us a lot more information. —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2023 [40].

Made You Look (Meghan Trainor song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 05:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Made You Look". After years of experimenting with different genres to little to no commercial returns, Trainor returned to her doo-wop roots and delivered a shocking comeback with this global top-10 single. Although not her most acclaimed release, it appealed to TikTok users and the rest is history. I would like to give special thanks to Aoba47 and SNUGGUMS for their help with the prose and media during this article's peer review. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 05:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "She struggled while creating her third one" => "She struggled while creating her third album"
  • "rewriting it four times as an attempt of "adapting to"" => "rewriting it four times in an attempt to "[adapt] to""
  • "She stated the elevated emotions" => "She stated that the elevated emotions"
  • "Trainor reprised the song at the eighth season" => "Trainor reprised the song during the eighth season" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • Suggest linking "trend" to viral phenomenon
  • Trainor wrote "Made You Look" alongside songwriter Sean Douglas -- co-wrote consistent with the lead
  • Now wrote in both places.
  • attained viral popularity -- same as above, perhaps should be linked to Viral phenomenon instead
  • Piper Westrom thought harken back to the sound of Title. -- per WP:NOTSIMPLE, perhaps something a little simpler than "harken back"
  • it achieved a correct balance between -- achieved a right balance IMO is more appropriate

That's all from me, great work overall. As a note, I have not read other editors' comments so apologies if there are overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

Fun! I remember reviewing this at DYK, and now it is finally here at FA.

  • Briefly introduce Sean Douglas (you can say "the songwriter Sean Douglas")
  • ALT for File:DarylSabara2022.png could be more descriptive.
  • Likewise introduce Sean Douglas in the body.
  • You mention in the lead that Federico Vindver was a producer but he is not referred to as such at first mention in the body.
  • "Her body image insecurities after pregnancy and an exercise where her therapist asked her to look at herself naked for five minutes inspired the song" This sentence is rather long and awkward; I suggest rewording it.
  • "Trainor came up with the lines "I'll make you double take / Soon as I walk away / Call up your chiropractor just in case your neck break", a reference to how Trainor's husband..." Suggest: "Trainor came up with the lines "I'll make you double take / Soon as I walk away / Call up your chiropractor just in case your neck break", as a reference to how Trainor's husband..."
  • "Petras adds new ad libs and high notes during her verse..." I believe it should be "added", not "adds", especially since the following sentence (also about Petras) is in the past tense.
  • "The lyrics and flirtatious approach of "Made You Look" were discussed by critics" Can we have a reference for this statement?
  • This is a summary statement to transition readers between the paragraphs so it's not directly stated in one secondary source but sourced by the following sentences.
  • Ditto with "'Made You Look' debuted at number 95 on the US Billboard Hot 100 issued dated November 5, 2022"
  • "Additionally, the song charted within the top 20, at number 11 in Hungary": if we know that it debuted at number 11, is it really necessary to say that it was top 20?

Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article's DYK had the most views any of my hooks have ever gotten, if I remember correctly. Thank you so much for that and for coming back to review this for FAC, Unlimitedlead! All the comments should be addressed now :) --NØ 19:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will support this nomination. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I participated in the peer review process for this article, and all of my concerns were already addressed there. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

Source review

  • What makes Renowned for Sound, Riff, and Plugged In high-quality reliable sources?
  • Renowned for Sound was launched by an editor who now has 20 years of industry experience. Riff has an extensive editorial team and is ran by Daniel Willis according to their About page, who has contributed to LA Times, The Atlantic, and several other reputed publications. I believe Plugged In is not a great source for anything controversial but another user at a noticeboard suggested it should be incorporated to represent diverse critical opinions about the song. I would be willing to remove this one if you insist.
  • Has Riff been cited by any other publications, or does the author of the article (Piper Westrom) have any credentials of her own?
  • The Plugged In author is listed as an intern, and while it is good to have diverse critical opinions, this website does not seem like a high-quality source for music criticism so I would remove it
  • I'm not sure how to check citations but Riff has been recognized with three awards by the San Francisco Press Club and the author in question has written for Newsbreak. They have an extensive editorial team and there doesn't seem to be any oversight problem. I have now removed Plugged In.
  • Do note that News Break is deprecated per WP:RSPSS. I'm just trying to get at why we care about their opinion as the author seemingly hasn't written for any other publication of a higher notability. Upon searching on ProQuest, it appears that Riff Magazine has been quoted/cited a couple of times. I would personally not include it, but I'll leave it up to you.
  • Italian radio refs should use Template:Cite press release; the second is missing author
  • "Meghan Trainor Chart History (Billboard Vietnam Hot 100)" → Billboard Vietnam Hot 100
  • link PopCulture.com
  • "as the second single from Takin' It Back (2022)" → not supported by All Access ref

This passes the source review. Heartfox (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

  • "An online dance challenge choreographed by TikTok users Brookie and Jessie set to "Made You Look" became a trend on the platform, following which around two million user-generated videos also used the song." → this is confusingly situated between a sentence discussing the a capella version release and one discussing the other remixes
  • the commercial performance section should have an intro sentence saying it was one her highest-charting songs in years
  • likewise for the performances paragraph, an intro sentence like "Trainor promoted the song with appearances on several television shows" would help distinguish the paragraph topic
  • what order are names in the credits section listed in?
  • Just the liner notes order I believe, which goes: producer, songwriters, instruments, and mix/master.
  • Some of the quotations could be paraphrased to be more understandable because Trainor doesn't seem that eloquent discussing the song. For example:
    ""[adapt] to what's going on in the music industry" → could be paraphrased "respond to market shifts in the music industry"
    "Everything I write I'm like 'Yo, TikTok's gonna eat this up,' like I truly um am focused on like, my fans on TikTok, [...] that's my home and I'm writing for TikTok."
    "I knew for this music video that I wanted it to be bright, fun colors. That's my thing, always ... but I wanted this to feel like (an) elevated (version of 'All About That) Bass,' more saturated"

Once these comments are addressed, I will be happy to support promotion and pass the source review :) Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the source and prose reviews. I believe the above comments should be addressed.--NØ 15:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Heartfox (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]
It's going to need an image review pass first. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, SNUGGUMS has passed the media review above. There was also briefly a second passed media review. Regards.--NØ 17:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I missed it. Yes, you may fire up another one. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2023 [41].

Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam

[edit]
Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of work trying to urge cultural institutions (GLAMs) to share content with Wikimedia. One promising approach is to find a public exhibition that has been thoroughly documented and has attracted a lot of third-party coverage, then to summarise its content and reception with a Wikipedia article and Commons category. I'm lucky enough to be a Wikimedian In Residence, so I've written this on paid time (as I declare on my user page), and my host institution has freely shared images of objects that were exhibited. I think this is some of my best wiki work and hope the attention given this article will persuade more museums to share images. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker: will be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Link the Kaaba?
    • done
  • "by the then Prince Charles": just "by Prince Charles"
    • done
Preparation and launch
  • The two red-linked people: are they notable enough for their own articles (I ask from a position of complete ignorance of either of them). If you think they are notable, then that's fine. (Ditto for Ayman Yossri further down the page.)
    • I've un-red-linked Qaisra Khan. I'm more confident that Venetia Porter deserves her own article. Ayman Yossri seems as notable as the other artists in that list of contemporary artists. This isn't based on a thorough search for sources so I'm persuadable either way about the notability of these people.
  • "40 collections from 14 countries contributed more than two hundred objects": per MOS:NUMNOTES, this should either be "40 collections ... 14 countries ... 200 objects" or "forty collections ... fourteen countries ... two hundred objects"
    • done: using numerals consistently in both parts of the article that mention these numbers
  • The then Prince Charles gave": just "Prince Charles gave"
    • done
  • "on 26 January.": as it's in a section where the only other year was 2010, you should probably add a year here.
    • done
Related exhibitions
  • If we have "Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam" and" Hajj: The Journey through Art", why does "Longing for Mecca: The pilgrim's journey" also not have a capitalised sub-title?
    • done: It was that way in source, but I've now capitalised the sub-title for consistency.
Refs
  • A lot of the refs have "language=en" or similar. We shouldn't include the language field if it is in English, only other language.
    • done
  • FN 50: (february 2019 – january 2020) should be capitalised, regardless of the original
    • done
  • You should check the capitalisation on the references and sources and make them consistent
    • Here I welcome more specific advice. The Berns paper is titled "Hajj journey to the heart of islam"; the Berns thesis chapter is titled "Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam". The Porter book is titled "Hajj: journey to the heart of Islam". Are you giving me the go-ahead to capitalise these the same way? Are there other inconsistencies I'm missing? Spacing before colons wasn't consistent and that's now been fixed.
  • (Note to co-ords: this is not a source review, just a few things that caught my eye)

That's it from me. I saw the exhibition when it was on, so it was good to read this and catch up on some of the background. – SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat for these corrections. I didn't attend the exhibition myself, so it's good to have the input of someone who did. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques". Shouldn't that be a lower-case initial c per MOS:JOBTITLES. Similarly in the main article.
    • done
  • "the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, Arab World Institute in Paris, National Museum of Ethnology in Leiden, and Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam". Why are the last three missing definite articles?
    • done: articles added
  • If Venetia Porter is red linked at first mention in the article, she should also be in the lead.
    • done
  • Several References seem to be missing (available) publisher locations.
    • done for all books
  • All foreign language words and phrases should be in lang templates.
  • "trek across desert or ocean". I am not sure that "trek across ... ocean" works.
    • done: now "journey"
  • "which help devotees turn towards the city for prayer". Perhaps unpack a little further why this happens?
    • done: added an extra bit of text to that sentence with a new supporting ref.
  • "The king of Bone's diary". Should that not be an upper-case K?
    • done
  • "show that a hajj has been completed". 'showing'?
    • done
  • "to show how the Masjid al-Haram has been modernised". A brief note of what the "Masjid al-Haram" is?
    • done
  • "red herring". See MOS:IDIOM.
    • done: replaced
  • "an exhibition catalogue that also includes". "that" → 'which'.
    • done
  • "The Khalili Collection of Hajj and the Arts of Pilgrimage". Should that be in italics?
    • In the context in which it's used, it refers to the collection, not to a publication about the collection, so I think it's correct as it is?
  • Why is Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam presented in italics, but the titles of other exhibitions in inverted commas? Why are some presented in title case and others in sentence case?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I appreciate the nudge- the initial notification of your post got swamped in my watchlist! Hugely grateful for the suggestions: I've fixed a number of these just now and I'll have time to address the rest (and report here) early next week. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One question for now: there's a case inconsistency in capitalisation of exhibition titles (your last point) between Hajj: The Journey through Art and Longing for Mecca: The pilgrim’s journey because that's how they are capitalised in this source. I'm not sure whether consistency with the source or consistency within the article is more important. What do you recommend? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the MoS trumps everything, so I shall investigate and report back. Note the comment above in green which does not seem to have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia, every day is a school day. See MOS:NEITHER: "There are cases in which titles should not be in italics nor in quotation marks ... Exhibitions, concerts, and other events: the world's fairs, Expo 2010, Cannes Film Festival, Burning Man, Lollapalooza". So I am afraid it would seem that they all need taking out of italics, including the article title! (But please don't change the article title until this nomination is closed and the bot has done its thing.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at the issues surrounding italics and exhibition titles recently, in discussions at WT:VAMOS and WT:MOSTITLE. I'm afraid the reference to exhibitions at MOS:NEITHER is poorly worded, because you'll see that on the same page, under MOS:ITALICTITLE, is the instruction to use italics for "Named exhibitions (artistic, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, literary, etc. – generally hosted by, or part of, an existing institution such as a museum or gallery), but not large-scale exhibition events". So Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam is the kind of exhibition title that should have italics, with MOS:NEITHER being reserved for really big or recurring exhibitions: Great Exhibition, Exposition Universelle (1889), World's Columbian Exposition, Royal Academy Summer Exhibition, Venice Biennale.
The other two exhibition titles mentioned above should be styled Hajj: The Journey Through Art, per MOS:5LETTER, and Longing for Mecca: The Pilgrim's Journey, per MOS:TITLECAPS. Ham II (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ham II I'm so grateful to you for sorting this out and I've made the required changes to the article. This makes a lot of sense, and I'll familiarise myself with these bits of the MOS. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Hi Martin, great to see you at FAC! This looks in good shape to me (as somebody who knows nothing about the subject). Just a few comments:

  • Maybe retitle the first section to "background" or "background: the Hajj" for standardisation and so the the reader knows what to expect?
    • done
  • There had been no previous museum exhibitions devoted to the hajj Really? None? Ever? I'd want a stronger source than the grauniad for a claim like that per WP:REDFLAG.
    • Foulds in The Diplomat (ref 12 in the current version) calls it the "first major exhibition to focus on the Hajj" and Akbar in The Independent (ref 32 in the current version) calls it the "world's first comprehensive show on the hajj". Considering the three references together, it seems fair to say that this exhibition was the first in some important sense, but there could have been "minor" or "non-comprehensive" exhibitions beforehand. So the existing wording needs to change. Would it be enough for me to introduce "major" into the sentence so it's less absolute?
  • The British Museum's planning for its exhibition spanned a two year period Since you're using the time period as an adjective (a compound adjective at that), you need a hyphen (as in two-year)
    • done
  • I'd suggest aligning the gallery to the centre if it's not too tricky to do.
    • done
  • The museum responded that the Saudi royal family had not funded the exhibition and had no curatorial control. Did they say why they decided to omit the aspects in question?
    • The simple answer is that the exhibition was about the devotees' experience of the hajj. This is implicit in a lot of the reviews and maybe it's too implicit in this article. In the Kashmir Observer piece covering the museum's response to the criticism (ref 11 in the current version), the project curator Qaisra Khan is quoted as saying "what we were trying to do [...] was to display and demonstrate this very personal, spiritual journey. It wasn't about the politics of it." I'm wary of changing the balance of text in this section about the controversy; do you want me to add more about the curators' intentions?
  • You quote a few reviews. Were there any reviews of the reviews or anything that analyses the general consensus of the reviewers?
    • I haven't found anything like that in my many searches. That's partly why I've quoted so many different reviews in the article. I think I'm very safe in calling the reviews as a whole "favourable".

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_mss_0097_fol_9b-10a.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_Mss_1025_fol_15a_CROP.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_ARC.al_0001.09.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_mss_0745_fol_1_CROP.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_Mecca_panorama.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria. Take a look at File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_mss_0745_fol_1_CROP.jpg: is that the sort of thing that's needed? If so, I'll apply it to the other manuscript images. The US tags seem to require that the work itself be registered before a certain date, when the free rationale for most of these images is that the objects themselves are centuries old. Now I look more closely at File:Khalili Collection Hajj and Arts of Pilgrimage ARC.al 0001.09.jpg the copyright seems complicated. The original photograph was taken some time in the 19th or early 20th century by an unknown photographer. I could swap that out for a photo where the copyright status is more clear-cut; what do you advise? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your first question is yes. On the second, what is the first publication of this image that can be identified? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Object tags now also added to File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_Mecca_panorama.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_mss_0097_fol_9b-10a.jpg, and File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_Mss_1025_fol_15a_CROP.jpg. The archival photograph I've swapped out of the article and will look at deleting since the copyright status is uncertain. The replacement image I've chosen is File:Khalili Collection Hajj and Arts of Pilgrimage txt 0241 full.jpg. Let me know if there's anything further I need to do. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]

I'll take a look over this one shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review will deal specifically with the following Featured article criteria:

I will not necessarily read any of the article beyond quotes spotchecks.

I'll start off by checking the formatting.

  • Firstly, a summary query; why are Berns and Porter listed in the Sources section, while another source used multiple times; Morris Hargreaves McIntyre is not?
    • No good reason, so that citation is now moved to Sources and sfn templates are used inline
  • Another summary point; some news sources and websites use the title of the work, such as "The Independent", "Kashmir Observer" etc. However, others use the website address, such as "gulfnews.com", "www.princeofwales.gov.uk". Please be consistent. (I favour the title myself.)
    • Now standardised on titles, but see below about the issue with nassedkhalili.com
  • Consider adding College Art Association as the publisher for ref #1, but no big deal.
    • done
  • I'm getting a "Page not found" error for ref #2 "The Laws of Islam". Also, if you manage to stick with this reference, add the state for the location, to be consistent with the majority of your other US based source locations. As it is a book with an ISBN, technically no link nor access date is required.
    • I've removed the entire ref since another existing source states the same fact
  • Another error for reference #4, updated link seems to be [42].
    • done
  • Ref #5, source lists the date as 29 January, whereas the reference lists 28 January.
    • done
  • Ref #6 doesn't need an access date.
    • done
  • Ref #7, it would be useful to list the location as "Ibadan, Nigeria" for clarity.
    • done
  • Ref #8, the source lists Wensinck, A.J. and Jomier, J. as authors, whereas the reference only lists Wensinck, Arent Jan.
    • done
  • Ref #10, per the MOS, change the hyphen in the title to an WP:ENDASH.
    • done
  • Ref #13 should be "The Guardian", not "the Guardian". Also ref #32, #39, #40, #41, #42.
    • done
  • Ref #19 should note that it is subscription only: |url-access=subscription
    • done
  • Ref #25, remove the "| reviews, news & interviews" bit from the end of the title.
    • done
  • Ref #27 should be "pp. 272–275." per the MOS.
    • done
  • Ref #30 should note that it is subscription only: |url-access=subscription
    • done; I've also done this for Times Higher Education which was ref 12.
  • For ref #48, I would list Nasser David Khalili as the publisher, not the website.
    • done, but I ask what you want me to call this website, since we're using titles, not domain names.
  • Ref #49, per his University page, his name should be listed as "Tamimi Arab, P." or "Tamimi Arab, Pooyan" rather than "Arab, Pooyan Tamimi".
    • done
  • For "Berns, Steph (2015)" if you are specifically citing the "Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam" chapter then you need the page range listed.

Now for some spotchecks. These will check for both 1f concerns and for verifiability under 1c.

  • "At the time of the exhibition, the journey was being made by three million pilgrims each year." – Sourced to ref #5, Gilbert, Jenny (28 January 2012). Checks out fine for both 1f and 1c.
  • "The displays were arranged to draw visitors around the circular space, mimicking the tawaf: the anticlockwise walk around the Kaaba that is a core ritual of the hajj." – Sourced to ref #25, Guner, Fisun (21 February 2012). No 1f concerns. The source doesn't cover the tawaf being a "core ritual of the hajj", but a quick look around the internet makes it plain this is true, and I'm happy to accept it as a "sky is blue" statement that doesn't require sourcing.
  • "Some non-Muslim visitors reported that overhearing Muslim families' conversations, or striking up conversations with them, helped them appreciate the spiritual importance of the hajj." – Sourced to ref #26, Berns, Steph (2012). Checks out fine for both 1f and 1c.
  • "The journalist and broadcaster Sarfraz Manzoor took his 78-year-old mother to the exhibition since she had long wanted to perform the hajj but was too infirm to make the trip. He contrasted his mother's joyous reaction against his own mixed feelings on the subject matter as a British Muslim. "And yet", he wrote, "the exhibition does illuminate the magnetic appeal of the hajj – of knowing that hundreds of millions have visited the site and completed the same rituals."" – Sourced to ref #39, Manzoor, Sarfraz (9 March 2012). Checks out fine for both 1f and 1c.
  • "These included the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha and the Arab World Institute in Paris. The Doha exhibition was titled Hajj: The Journey Through Art and drew most of its content from Qatari art collections. Since France has many North African immigrants, the Paris exhibition focused on hajj routes from North Africa." – Sourced to ref #47, Mishkhas, Abeer (26 July 2013). Checks out fine for both 1f and 1c.
  • The article generally appears well-referenced, with inline citations appearing frequently throughout.
  • Searches in all the normal places don't reveal any obvious omissions.
  • My only concern regarding the quality of the sources is with Steph Berns' 2015 piece, which is her PhD thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP tells us to be wary of these. Are you able to establish Berns' credentials, or that of this thesis to demonstrate that it meets the 1c requirement of "high-quality reliable sources"?

And that's a wrap on the source review. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate the time and detail you've put into this review, Harrias. In response to the query about the doctoral thesis, maybe I'm not objective about the reliability of doctoral theses, having invested several years of my life in one, so I will set out the positive reasons for using the thesis and let the community decide whether this source counts as reliable.
  • University of Kent is a reputable research university and its acceptance of the thesis would involve review by a relevant researcher.
  • According to Google Scholar, the thesis is cited by 19 other academic publications.
  • Berns subsequently held academic posts at Lancaster University and at Rhur University Bochum (sadly the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to have prior versions of that profile). At Lancaster, she published this peer-reviewed paper which also dealt with public responses to events put on by cultural heritage institutions.
  • The chapter of the thesis used in this article was briefly summarised in the peer-reviewed journal Material Religion and then adapted into a chapter in the 2016 book Materiality and the Study of Religion. Google Scholar finds seven citations for the book chapter. I haven't got hold of this book (neither my university nor other nearby university libraries have it) but if the thesis is decided to be an inadequate source I could make more efforts to access it.
  • Where I introduce Berns' research in this article, I give context by describing Berns as a doctoral researcher.
  • The thesis provides more detail about the public response to the exhibition than is given in the Material Religion summary and which I personally think is very interesting.
MartinPoulter (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MartinPoulter: Thanks for your prompt and detailed responses. Regarding ref #48, Nasser David Khalili's website, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to just list him as the publisher, and not include a website field at all. Regarding Steph Berns' thesis, I am more than content with it as a source after your response. In most cases, when I question whether a source meets our requirements, I am not necessarily saying that I don't believe it does, simply that I am after more information. What you have provided is more than sufficient for me to be happy with its inclusion. I have used PhD theses in articles of my own, but it is simply an area where we have to be slightly more careful. Overall, as the only outstanding "issue" is the minor one on ref #48, I am happy to mark this source review as a pass. Based on the sourcing, and the small parts of the article I read, let me congratulate you on a nice piece of work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the website field as requested, resolving that final issue. Thanks again! MartinPoulter (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 April 2023 [43].

I Don't Wanna Cry

[edit]
Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Mariah Carey's fourth number one single on the Billboard Hot 100. It is notable for the rift it caused between Carey and its producer Narada Michael Walden, who never collaborated on another album after 1990. Carey's future/former husband Tommy Mottola cites her lack of creative control during the production process as a reason for the eventual dissolution of their marriage! Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

[edit]
  • "reached the top ten on music charts in Canada" - multiple charts in Canada?
    Yes, at the time there was one for sales-only (The Record, which was republished in Billboard's Hits of the World section) and another was airplay-only (RPM). It reached the top ten on both charts.
    Thanks for clarifying - in that case I would suggest rewording slightly to "reached the top ten on both sales and airplay charts in Canada" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Heartfox (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her 1993 marriage with Mottola ended due to his controlling nature" - this is the first mention of her marriage to Mottola, I suggest you mention earlier the fact that they had got married
    Rephrased.
  • "The song has a similar" => "The latter song has a similar" for clarity?
    Clarified.
  • "The First Vision (1991) presents" - clarify what this is
    Clarified.
  • "due to the appearance of her dress and the model" - what model?
    Clarified.
  • Notes which are not complete sentences (which is most of them) do not need full stops
    Removed.
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC
Thanks so much for your comments, ChrisTheDude. I believe I have addressed them all. Heartfox (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude, does everything look okay? Heartfox (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question from ResPM

[edit]

I noticed the article the other day after I saw a bunch of hidden single-chart categories had been removed. Although I already have an idea about why you did this, can you explain why you replaced the templates with manual citations? On most FAs I've seen—even recent ones—I haven't seen charts formatted this way. I'm just curious. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the templates are fine for regular articles, especially newer ones where it is much easier to update chart peaks by copy and pasting the same template between articles. But they are simply malformatted. Many use the chart name in what is supposed to be the publisher parameter. In my opinion this is just not proper for a featured article. This issue has been brought up by non-subject matter editors on other FACs, but nothing much ever happens. Heartfox (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Source review

[edit]

Putting this as a placeholder. One immediate comment I have: I'm not sure if the table for the Critical reviews helpful as it only contains 2? Ippantekina (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ippantekina, I have removed the table. Heartfox (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are properly formatted and of high quality.
  • Not sure if #54's (Billboard staff) and #55's (Entertainment Weekly staff) are necessary; "et al." suffices for me
    Done
  • Might be a personal preference, but I'd convert refs #17, #21 and #24 using {{sfn}}
    Because they're only cited once, I do not see this as necessary
  • Italicize some publication names i.e. Songwriting Universe
    Italicized.
  • Spotchecks: #8, #15, #21, #28, #69.

Overall very good work with the sources. Just some minor issues. Ippantekina (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: thanks for the source review. Heartfox (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing source review. Great job on the article and best of luck with this FAC! Ippantekina (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Aoba47

[edit]

I will post a full review sometime next week. I do have one quick comment though for the moment. The "Critical reception" section seems really condensed. All of the sentences are overviews of critics's opinions, and I think it would be more beneficial to provide examples on individual critics discussed these ideas in their reviews. I just do not think the current structure is the most beneficial to readers. I agree with Ippantekina that the table here seems unnecessary as there are apparently only two review scores. It makes more sense for something like "Easy on Me" that has more review scores to put in a table. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments; I look forward to your review. I am following WP:RECEPTION guidance, "If six reviewers say X, you should report that X was a widespread opinion; there's no need to quote or name all six." The song did not receive many substantial reviews and so the critical reception section will naturally be relatively small. In fact, of the reviews from 1990–1991 there is only one that is not an album review. I pulled what I could from the 1–2 sentences available and combined them with similar comments from other reviews. The section does look weirdly short on a wide display with only 2 lines but it seems normal to me on Vector 2022. I will remove the table shortly. Heartfox (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I am not using a wide display, and my comments are not about this section's length. My comments were focused on the structure, which again I do not see as the most benefical to readers. I have a different interpretation of the quoted part of WP:RECEPTION. I do not take not needing to quote or name all six reviewers as not needing to name or quote any of them. The examples provided in that essay still select reviewers to highlight and quote to provide a more comprehensive and clearer picture to readers.
Again, I do not have an issue with the length. I have written articles with short "Critical reception" sections before so I understand that point. I found myself reading this part and asking questions, like what about the song did reviewers find conventional or in what ways did reviewers find Carey's vocals to be complimentary to the song's composition. I am not asking for this section to be hugely expanded on, but I was just uncertain of the current structure. I would be curious to see how other reviewers respond to it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part (it references the act of crying due to a tearful circumstance) reads rather awkwardly to me. I think it is overly wordy and is overly explanatory.
    Shortened
  • For this part (According to David T. Farr, they), I would identify Farr in the prose.
    Identified Farr and Marcic
  • This part (Using a low register during verses and an upper register for the chorus, her vocal range) when read literally is saying Carey's vocal range is the one using the registers. This should be changed to be grammatically correct.
    Fixed
  • For this part (the fourth and final single from Mariah Carey in the United States), it may be beneficial to add a note saying that "There's Got to Be a Way" was released as a single only in the United Kingdom. While the current wording emphasizes this is the last US single, I think it would be best to avoid any potential confusion about the album having a fifth single.
    Added a note

I hope these comments are helpful. You have done a wonderful job with the article so my comments are fairly limited. I am still not sure about the "Critical reception" structure, and that will likely hold up my review. If you decide to leave it as it currently stands, I will wait to see how other reviewers respond to it. Best of luck with the FAC overall! Aoba47 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I have revised the critical reception structure, adding quotes for clarity. Heartfox (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything! I think the quotes help a lot, and the section is still concise. I do have two more quick comments. For the Entertainment Weekly and Stereogum bits, I would attribute the author in the prose to be consistent with the other instances in this section. While on the topic of Entertainment Weekly and Stereogum, would it be possible to swap out the score/grade for something more substantive from the reviews? I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I do not find either score or grade particularly illuminating or notable enough to get mentioned in the prose over the actual contents of either review. Apologies for adding on something else, but this should be it, and once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support at that stage. Aoba47 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have attributed the authors. The Entertainment Weekly ref is unfortunately pretty much useless beyond the score. It just says "So tragic, when true love dies! Only emptiness inside. But "Cry" also landed Carey her fourth consecutive No. 1, so dry those tears, Mimi. B+." As for Stereogum, it already is cited 10 times in the article and thrice in the critical reception section so I don't know if it is appropriate to rely on it much more than that. Heartfox (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I would honestly recommend removing that sentence as I do not think it adds that much value, but I will leave that up to your personal preference. It may be best to wait and see if other reviewers have any issue with it. If not, then it should be fine as it currently stands. It is a shame the Entertainment Weekly source is not so great in terms of actual content. Thank you for your patience with my review. I support your FAC for promotion based on the prose. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
  • Unlink the common terms "digital synthesizers", "section", "airplay", "introduction", "verse", "pre-chorus", "post-chorus", "concludes", "outro", "album track", and "hit song" per WP:OVERLINK, also the use of "hit" here is subpar tone
    Unlinked and reworded
  • To give readers context regarding marriage and creative control (not everybody knows the nature of their relationship), the lead should mention Tommy was running Mariah's label (Columbia Records) at the time
    Added
  • As far as I know, "Singles" was never part of the chart name for Billboard Hot 100, so let's remove that and maybe use "songs" with lower case instead.
    See Google Books; the title at the time was "Hot 100 Singles" (and trademarked as that). It's also listed as "Hot 100 Singles" in the table of contents on the cover.
  • Just say fourth single from the album: any details on which territories other songs were released is better for the Mariah Carey album article.
    Reworded
  • If it's known when this particular song was recorded, then I'd add that.
    In Narada Michael Walden's book about his relationship with Whitney Houston, he makes reference to tracking Carey's vocals "during one of the March 1990 sessions" in New York, but doesn't indicate that this was for "I Don't Wanna Cry". It might be better to include in the album article as I'm not certain it applies to this song specifically.

Thankfully I find no glaring issues! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift review! Heartfox (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, and one last thing I forgot to mention: were you not able to find a specific release date within March 1991? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately US release dates are very hard to come by in the physical era. March 1991 is used as that's when it was reviewed in Billboard and designated as a "new release". The Recording Industry Association of America gives a release date of April 25, 1991, which is absurd as it was already top 15 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the April 27 issue. I have noticed many discrepancies and issues with RIAA release dates, so I only cite them if there is no other source. Heartfox (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and the only March date I came across (namely the 19th) was from fansites, so I'll support the page as it is now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]

Apologies for taking my time with this. I should have prose comments up sometime during the weekend.--NØ 07:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Carey is not referred to as a "singer-songwriter" on her biography or other featured articles about her. Shouldn't it be just "singer" here as well?
    Reworded.
  • "It became Carey's fourth consecutive number one" → "number-one"
    I believe hyphens are only used when in an adjective. In this case, "number one" is the noun. The sentence is written as "fourth consecutive number one", not "fourth consecutive number-one song". I believe both are correct, but in this case the former is used.
  • Can the sentence beginning "Ienner recommended" be rephrased to convey the idea better? Currently the part of this sentence with the genres seems tacked on and is a bit hard to understand.
    Rephrased.
  • "While working on some uptempo tunes" → uptempo songs might be more formal
    Reworded.
  • The sentence about Carey's marriage and divorce looks a little out of place to me in the Recording section, but I'll leave it up to you what to do with this part.
    There isn't enough content for a legacy section, so I think it fits best here.
  • "It distributed cassettes and 7-inch vinyls to retail in March 1991" → what about "the label" instead of "it"?
    Reworded.
  • Is it necessary to state how many units the certification signifies?
    Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, "Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence." The term "Gold" might not be familiar to someone who doesn't know a lot about the music industry, so the addition of what it represents acts as an explainer.
  • The man in the music video being attractive is currently stated in Wikipedia voice. If this can't be attributed to a critic it might be better to remove this characterization.
    ABC News describes him as a " shirtless model", so I don't think stating he is attractive is unreasonable.
I'd be fine with describing him as a male model as done in the current revision if that verbiage is prevalent in sources.
My favorite songs on Carey's debut album are probably "Vanishing" and "Love Takes Time". It is great to see articles from the era still getting improved so many years later. Good luck with the nomination!--NØ 11:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful comments. I would have to say that "Someday" 7" Jack Swing Mix is my favourite :) Heartfox (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--NØ 14:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments

[edit]
According to WorldCat [44] the author is Mariah Carey. (Which makes sense to me.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Heartfox (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2023&oldid=1151407088"